Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Discussions on Talking Machines & Accessories
Post Reply
User avatar
phonogfp
Victor Monarch Special
Posts: 7384
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:08 pm
Personal Text: "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." - A. Lincoln
Location: New York's Finger Lakes

Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by phonogfp »

A recent thread about the restoration of an AT Graphophone brought up the old-time prejudices of collectors toward Columbia due to its use of pot metal. Comments included these:

"Older collectors used to disparage Graphophones for all the pot metal problems (while curiously forgiving Edison all those swollen reproducers and recorders, bearings in Model D, E, and F machines, lower pulleys on Homes, upper pulleys on some Gems, etc...)."

"Well, if you think back, back then Columbia had a real image problem. The Internet, with its wealth of discussion boards and blogs and information sites and whatnot, was years and years in the future. Most of us had two primary references about spring phonos: Read and Welch's From Tinfoil to Stereo and Roland Gelatt's The Fabulous Phonograph. Read and Welch, much the more comprehensive, had a pronounced pro-Edison bias, with Victor also viewed favorably. Gelatt had a strong pro-Victor bias, with Edison viewed favorably until Victor came along and a certain condescension thereafter. In both books, Columbia served as the obligatory villain of the piece, engaging in unethical legal and business skulduggery to make trouble for the authors' respective heroes. Only in pretty recent years has the story come out showing that everybody engaged in unethical legal and business skulduggery--it was the accepted way of doing business at the time--and Columbia in fact often was playing plucky underdog to more powerful competitors."

"Back in the 60s and 70s, the bulk of antique phonograph collectors seemed to be "home handymen" types, who really couldn't successfully tackle seized carriages/trunions. Until the mid-1980s I shied away from them for the same reason. With more serious collecting came more sophisticated restoration techniques. My shop is pretty modest, but I've repaired a bunch of swollen carriages/trunions - thanks to tips from talented restoration experts. The Columbia pot metal problems are not as serious as they once were, simply because now there are many folks who can handle them."


There is, however, one application of Columbia pot metal which I believe is always fatal - the notorious AT upper castings of the 1900-1901 period. I haven't seen these castings used on anything but ATs, and thankfully for only a short time. It's possible that problems with these castings developed early on, but for whatever reason, American Graphophone didn't use pot metal in these for long. Nowadays when collectors encounter these castings, the teeth of the gears will often not mesh due to the expansion of the pot metal, as in this example:
potmetalcasting (2).jpg
All that said, I thought it would be illuminating (and a chance to use some old images from my hard drive) to show a few of the Columbia cylinder Graphophones which used no pot metal. This is by no means a comprehensive list, yet compare this variety to some other manufacturers and ask yourself if it really makes sense to shy away from Columbia because of pot metal!

George P.

Type A:
100_6287.JPG
Type B:
100_6280.JPG
Early Type C:
100_5535.JPG
Type N:
Ncover2_2.jpg
Early Type Q:
005.JPG
Graphophone Grand:
100_6198.JPG
Type AB:
100_5942.JPG
Late Type Q:
019.JPG
All B-series Graphophones (BC and BF pictured):
phono6 (2).JPG

marco
Victor II
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:23 pm
Location: Navarre, Ohio

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by marco »

phonogfp wrote:A recent thread about the restoration of an AT Graphophone brought up the old-time prejudices of collectors toward Columbia due to its use of pot metal. Comments included these:

"Older collectors used to disparage Graphophones for all the pot metal problems (while curiously forgiving Edison all those swollen reproducers and recorders, bearings in Model D, E, and F machines, lower pulleys on Homes, upper pulleys on some Gems, etc...)."

"Well, if you think back, back then Columbia had a real image problem. The Internet, with its wealth of discussion boards and blogs and information sites and whatnot, was years and years in the future. Most of us had two primary references about spring phonos: Read and Welch's From Tinfoil to Stereo and Roland Gelatt's The Fabulous Phonograph. Read and Welch, much the more comprehensive, had a pronounced pro-Edison bias, with Victor also viewed favorably. Gelatt had a strong pro-Victor bias, with Edison viewed favorably until Victor came along and a certain condescension thereafter. In both books, Columbia served as the obligatory villain of the piece, engaging in unethical legal and business skulduggery to make trouble for the authors' respective heroes. Only in pretty recent years has the story come out showing that everybody engaged in unethical legal and business skulduggery--it was the accepted way of doing business at the time--and Columbia in fact often was playing plucky underdog to more powerful competitors."

"Back in the 60s and 70s, the bulk of antique phonograph collectors seemed to be "home handymen" types, who really couldn't successfully tackle seized carriages/trunions. Until the mid-1980s I shied away from them for the same reason. With more serious collecting came more sophisticated restoration techniques. My shop is pretty modest, but I've repaired a bunch of swollen carriages/trunions - thanks to tips from talented restoration experts. The Columbia pot metal problems are not as serious as they once were, simply because now there are many folks who can handle them."


There is, however, one application of Columbia pot metal which I believe is always fatal - the notorious AT upper castings of the 1900-1901 period. I haven't seen these castings used on anything but ATs, and thankfully for only a short time. It's possible that problems with these castings developed early on, but for whatever reason, American Graphophone didn't use pot metal in these for long. Nowadays when collectors encounter these castings, the teeth of the gears will often not mesh due to the expansion of the pot metal, as in this example:
potmetalcasting (2).jpg
All that said, I thought it would be illuminating (and a chance to use some old images from my hard drive) to show a few of the Columbia cylinder Graphophones which used no pot metal. This is by no means a comprehensive list, yet compare this variety to some other manufacturers and ask yourself if it really makes sense to shy away from Columbia because of pot metal!

George P.

Type A:
100_6287.JPG
Type B:
100_6280.JPG
Early Type C:
100_5535.JPG
Type N:
Ncover2_2.jpg
Early Type Q:
005.JPG
Graphophone Grand:
100_6198.JPG
Type AB:
100_5942.JPG
Late Type Q:
019.JPG
All B-series Graphophones (BC and BF pictured):
phono6 (2).JPG
Hi! I am cylinder ignorant; but have had my problems with columbia cylinder players--especially with the Lyre type reproducer in the past. You know--the only one that ever worked decent for me was a later Columbia eagle--small machine--but played loud and clear with 2 minute wax and celluloid and even some four minute blue amberols if I regulated it while it was playing. No damage; but that was when I was young and had not yet purchased and Edison Machine with 2/4 minute gearing. I would say that I have also learned a lot about Columbia Grafanolas; and, personally--that is my go to machine for listening to new purchase records at least once. I have learned much and am sad to know that they have pot metal and fiber gear problems also. Can anyone point me to models that did not have either of those problems in disc machines? I do have a later Columbia open horn that has served me for years; but don't know it it has fiber issues or not. The Pot Metal analyzing reproducer with the spring loaded needle holder has served me well for over 25 years. Only problem is that the original nickel plating started to peel in the past and has not progressed in all these years; but I am afraid if I have it replated the tonearm will just dissolve. Would love to get an Oak Screw in horn for it one day and dress it up. That statement was just to be as a "want" if anyone ever has one. Thank you all for continuing to share information on all things phonograph, early radio/phonographs and early record changers. I started collecting when I was 13 and am 55 now; but took several years off from collecting phonographs to build a jukebox collection to play all of my favorite discs on. Best! Mark

Phonofreak
Victor VI
Posts: 3718
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:00 pm
Location: Western, WA State

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by Phonofreak »

As you fellow members know, I love Columbia machines and very partial to them. When I first started collecting in the late 1980's, more experienced collectors told me to stay away from Columbia machines. I really didn't listen. When I first got Eric Reiss's book, The Complete Talking Machine, I really learned about Columbia and pot metal restoration. Columbia machines have always been the underdog compared to Victor and Edison. Also, Columbia machines were about the only machines that I can afford. I really like the ornate cabinets with the fancy gingerbread trim. Compared to a Victor MS, being out of my price range, I can get a very nice fancy cased AH for about half the price. Once you clean the motor and replace the dreaded fiber gear, you have a smooth, quiet, good running motor. My favorite period of Columbia is from the late 1890's through about 1915 or so. After that, the plainer cabinets came into vogue. However, they are good running machines. The other problem is the pot metal elbow, but these can easily be replaced. I know the debate will go on and on. I have the typical Victor and Victrolas, Edisons, Zonophones and the like. But I absolutely love Columbias. :D , and will always go after them. Especially the fancy disk machines to play my Hawaiian records LOL :lol: :lol:
Harvey Kravitz

User avatar
phonospud
Victor I
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:32 pm
Personal Text: Expert antique musical box & phonograph repairs for 40 years
Location: Woodstock, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by phonospud »

I always thought that the type N Graphophone had the entire top chassis made of pot metal, yet this is one casting that rarely ever has issues to my knowledge and I've seen quite a few of them in the past 35 years. Just in case you didn't know why pot metal fails: aluminum/zinc/alloy castings were cutting edge technology a century ago using the injection mold process. Complex parts could be made very quickly. The fatal flaw was that companies doing the injection molding used powdered lead as a lubricant or mold release agent so parts could be ejected easily from the expensive dies without causing damage. My closest friend Paul Baker coined the term "inter-granular corrosion". Basically, the lead reacts with the alloy at the molecular level, while it's still liquid for that last nano-second that the material is injected into the mold under high pressure. The lead causes the alloy to slowly react and separate. Not all pot metal parts fail. Dies did not always need to be lubricated every single time they were filled. The lead might have been only put in every third shot, or every 12th time depending on the die. When the parts started to stick or drag in the die, the worker lubricated the die as needed. The first fill of the mold after lubrication would be the first part to crumble over time, later cycles not receiving as much lead, would seem to last a century. The problem was discovered (I think) probably into the early part of the 1930's and companies involved scrambled desperately to find a solution. I think by the 1940's the problem was mostly solved as you rarely see things made of die cast in automobiles for example from post 1940 that suffer from the problems of parts made from the 1890's. Companies that didn't know, or care for that matter continued business as usual. The automotive industry for example was fairly quick to solve these alloy failures.
Some people have thought bad or damp storage causes these problems. Nope. Not even close. I've seen absolutely drop dead gorgeous mint U.S. Everlasting machines where some of the castings have failed miserably, where other parts on the same machine were just fine. As an example, the top plates of the U.S. reproducers rarely have an issue, where the main "body" of the same assembly is totally messed up. It's all about the lead :)
Finest in music box and phonograph restorations for over 40 years

User avatar
phonogfp
Victor Monarch Special
Posts: 7384
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:08 pm
Personal Text: "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." - A. Lincoln
Location: New York's Finger Lakes

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by phonogfp »

phonospud wrote:I always thought that the type N Graphophone had the entire top chassis made of pot metal, yet this is one casting that rarely ever has issues to my knowledge and I've seen quite a few of them in the past 35 years.
I don't believe the top casting of the N is pot metal, but rather aluminum.

George P.

P.S.: Please don't forget I need some dampers done on a Regina! :)

User avatar
startgroove
Victor III
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:01 pm
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by startgroove »

It seems there are several explanations for the reasons "pot metal" is sometimes unstable. From experience with 1930's and 1940's jukeboxes, I've learned that for a year or two before WW2, all manufacturers were encountering shortages of certain materials, due to the war goods requirements. Apparently, the pot metal they used for casting mechanism parts contained small quantities of certain metals which helped to stabilize those parts, and those metals were in short supply just before the War. Without those metals, the cast parts degraded easily, and sometimes very quickly. Hence, it is not uncommon to find a 1940 or 1941 jukebox mechanism that is swelled or even dis-integrating.

Here is a an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Metallurgy (of pot metal)
There is no metallurgical standard for pot metal. Common metals in pot metal include zinc, lead, copper, tin, magnesium, aluminum, iron, and cadmium. The primary advantage of pot metal is that it is quick and easy to cast. Because of its low melting temperature, it requires no sophisticated foundry equipment or specialized molds. Manufacturers sometimes use it to experiment with molds and ideas (e.g., prototypes) before casting final products in a higher quality alloy.
Depending on the exact metals "thrown into the pot," pot metal can become unstable over time, as it has a tendency to bend, distort, crack, shatter, and pit with age. The low boiling point of zinc and fast cooling of newly cast parts often trap air bubbles within the cast part, weakening it. Many components common in pot metal are susceptible to corrosion from airborne acids and other contaminants, and internal corrosion of the metal often causes decorative plating to flake off. Pot metal is not easily glued, soldered, or welded.
(In the late nineteenth century, pot metal referred specifically to a copper alloy that was primarily alloyed with lead. Mixtures of 67% copper with 29% lead and 4% antimony and another one of 80% copper with 20% lead were common formulations.)
The primary component of pot metal is zinc, but often the caster adds other metals to the mix to strengthen the cast part, improve flow of the molten metal, or to reduce cost. With a low melting point of 419 °C (786 °F), zinc is often alloyed with other metals including lead, tin, aluminum, and copper.

Victrolacollector
Victor V
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: NW Indiana VV-IV;

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by Victrolacollector »

Some have said there are no pot metal parts in a Columbia Q, I think that there may be.

The tube of the carriage which slides on the bar of my Columbia Q actually split underneath. I ended up replacing this tube.
Also, I think the lift lever may have been pot metal. Some of the spring barrels also appear to have been pot metal, as some of them have broken teeth and cracks in the barrels.

User avatar
phonogfp
Victor Monarch Special
Posts: 7384
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:08 pm
Personal Text: "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will." - A. Lincoln
Location: New York's Finger Lakes

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by phonogfp »

Victrolacollector wrote:Some have said there are no pot metal parts in a Columbia Q, I think that there may be.

The tube of the carriage which slides on the bar of my Columbia Q actually split underneath. I ended up replacing this tube.
Also, I think the lift lever may have been pot metal. Some of the spring barrels also appear to have been pot metal, as some of them have broken teeth and cracks in the barrels.
I have a Q with a split spring barrel and a few damaged teeth. It's machined aluminum. (You can see the machine in the picture below.) I've seen a few failed aluminum parts on Qs, but I've never seen a pot metal part on one. I'd love to see pictures of a Q with pot metal.

George P.
100_6212 (2).JPG

Victrolacollector
Victor V
Posts: 2693
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: NW Indiana VV-IV;

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by Victrolacollector »

phonogfp wrote:
Victrolacollector wrote:Some have said there are no pot metal parts in a Columbia Q, I think that there may be.

The tube of the carriage which slides on the bar of my Columbia Q actually split underneath. I ended up replacing this tube.
Also, I think the lift lever may have been pot metal. Some of the spring barrels also appear to have been pot metal, as some of them have broken teeth and cracks in the barrels.
I have a Q with a split spring barrel and a few damaged teeth. It's machined aluminum. (You can see the machine in the picture below.) I've seen a few failed aluminum parts on Qs, but I've never seen a pot metal part on one. I'd love to see pictures of a Q with pot metal.

George P.
100_6212 (2).JPG
Hi George:

Thanks for sharing, I learned something new. It appears that these are some of the nicest machines with no pot metal.

Jerry P.

edisonclassm
Victor II
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 9:45 am

Re: Columbia & Pot Metal: A Rebuttal

Post by edisonclassm »

The top casting on the Columbia N is a form of pewter as well as the reproducer top cap on the US machines. That is why they do not deteriorate like pot metal castings which are primarily zinc. I had a friend in the Music box Society who owned a die casting company. It had been in the family for several generations and he explained to me that it was found by the 1920's that the early die castings were unstable and the industry went into a panic as many manufacturers who depended on die castings were starting to shy away from them. The deterioration of the metal in the die castings was known as intergranular corrosion caused by lead contamination. Once it was found that lead was the culprit the industry removed it from the process and the problem was solved. That was around 1930. I'm sure there are post 1930 die cast products with problems but overall the problem was significantly reduced after that date. All of the phonograph manufacturers used die cast components as it was very economical to do so. My guess is that a few self serving collectors years ago started bad mouthing the Columbia machines so that the market would stay depressed and could acquire them at a low cost. The fact of the matter is that Columbia being the underdog at the time produced some of the most aesthetically pleasing machines on the market as well as having the largest variety of all of the manufacturers producing both cylinder and disc machines. They were also very technically innovative from not only an operational standpoint but also from the manufacturing techniques they introduced. It allowed them to remain competitive in a very competitive industry

Post Reply