E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Discussions on Talking Machines of British or European Manufacture
User avatar
chunnybh
Victor III
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Personal Text: "If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink." Vivian Stanshall
Location: Victoria. Australia
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by chunnybh »

Marks I to III may well have remained as design sketches and it is possible that some of the Mark designs may in fact predate his association with EMG?
Now that is a very valid point. The ad also makes clear that Davey's early models were small, ruling out the Wilson Horn models pre Mk VIII.

User avatar
emgcr
Victor IV
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by emgcr »

Here is another advert’ for the MK V and it is worth noting that it is indeed a large beast ! Tom (Loudbass), the proud owner of this fabulous instrument which is the only known Mk V survivor, advises that the dimensions are as follows:

Depth 19" (22”).
Width 24" (20”).
Cabinet height 20" (12”).

Full height---top of cabinet to floor 43” (Legs therefore 23”).

The blue figures in brackets are the approximate comparative measurements of a Mk X case.

This example has come to light within the last twelve months. The superb casework is assuredly the work of Darrrieulat.

The following link gives further details/photos etc:

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... +V&start=0

It would seem that the legs are an integral part of the design and cannot be removed as shown by the construction details in the two photos attached below. In spite of this, it would seem that EMG still referred to a “table” model---presumably as visually it could be imagined that the casework might be capable of removal from its base frame and may actually have been so in other examples ? It might also be said that the cabinet looks to be sitting on a table ? Certainly the cabinet is very much larger than the Mk IV and the conduit/tonearm length greater also---a completely different animal, in fact.
Attachments
f_fghm_3ef47f2[1].jpg
f_fghm_3ef47f2[1].jpg (199.25 KiB) Viewed 2900 times
010.JPG
2.jpg
1.jpg

User avatar
emgcr
Victor IV
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by emgcr »

Orchorsol wrote:
* but why not X, XI, XII? !
Possibly the reason for sub-dividing the Mk X classifications had to do with the fact that all Mk Xs were essentially the same animal and not fundamentally different in design ? For all practical purposes it was the differing horn sizes which were the distinguishing features even though the Xb had a longer internal conduit.

User avatar
Orchorsol
Victor IV
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:03 am
Location: Dover, UK
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by Orchorsol »

Curiouser and curiouser, seeing the Mark number omitted from that 1929 advertisement for the Mk VIII!

Going back to my simplistic point earlier, can we say they form a series in terms of relative acoustic length?
emgcr wrote:Possibly the reason for sub-dividing the Mk X classifications had to do with the fact that all Mk Xs were essentially the same animal and not fundamentally different in design ? For all practical purposes it was the differing horn sizes which were the distinguishing features even though the Xb had a longer internal conduit.
Yes indeed, I was just expressing an idle thought! (Related directly to the one above.)
BCN thorn needles made to the original 1920s specifications: http://www.burmesecolourneedles.com

Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe4DNb ... TPE-zTAJGg?

User avatar
emgcr
Victor IV
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by emgcr »

Yes indeed---no mention of the Mk VIII is strange indeed---why the deliberate omission ? Well spotted Andy ! One might have thought that the model was new but, as we know, such was not the case, confirmed by the statement that many colleges and universities etc were happily using that type already. Perhaps the fact that they possessed Wilson horns was the major significant determining factor ? Even though Percy Wilson had an input into all subsequent (Cygnet) EMG horns his original with only one bend was also sold separately and possibly, therefore, could not exclusively be claimed by EMG earlier on ? Certainly when the "Wilson Panharmonic horn model" was introduced in 1927 there was no mention of EMG Mk VIII---see advert below ! Exactly when it became the Mk VIII is not clear but by September 1930 it had happened as the advert' on page one of this thread shows. Possibly the 1927 advert' referred to the MK VI which also had a Wilson horn ? (Latter statement subsequently found to be incorrect---see below. Many apologies).

Your point with reference to the general increase of acoustic length in rough association with Mark number progression is a good one---and intriguing---could well be correct ! Tom's thoughts on Mk numbers 1, 11 and 111 perhaps being experimental or of no relevance to the EMG firm are also thought-provoking !

It is also interesting to note the small-print quote that..."every model is fitted with the Paillard GGR motor"...at that date.
Attachments
001 (3).JPG
Last edited by emgcr on Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Loudbass
Victor O
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:45 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by Loudbass »

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here. It seems fairly clear the the 'Mark' epithet was brought in by Davey, "a survival of military ways". The Wilson Horn Model was, I believe, already in production before Davey joined the company. He came to the EMG fold with several gramophone designs on paper and a couple of made up experimental models. The first model he was asked to add to the portfolio was the Mark VII which was a response to the exponential models released by HMV. In time the VII's smaller brother (V) was released and, eventially, the even smaller IV. Davey sought to improve the Wilson Horn Model by means of an internal conduit...this was also to appear on some late HMV horn models. In time this was designated Mark VIII, but there may have been a cross over period as it was essentially a revised version of a popular pre existing machine. As the early pre conduit Wilson Horn models pre date Davey I feel it is unlikely they would be given a Mark number. In the EMG story the Mark VI is described as: "believed identical (to the Mark V) but with storage for 100 records beneath". Such a machine did appear for auction several years ago. The record storage was incorporated to the left of the gramophone creating a console style machine. I attach a photo below. If an advert mentioning the Mark VI and its attributes could be found we would have our answer, but in the meantime this is where I feel the evidence points!
Attachments
IMG_0727.JPG

User avatar
chunnybh
Victor III
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Personal Text: "If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink." Vivian Stanshall
Location: Victoria. Australia
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by chunnybh »

I totally agree with Loudbass and that surly is the MkVI with the Darrrieulat storage drawers.
This model below, that I have been mistakenly calling the Mk VI has none of the features of a Davey machine. My understanding is that the early Wilson Horn models were the HMV Lumiere conversions with the raised pillars to support the upside down Seymour tonearm. When Ginn them designed an E.M.G cabinet , it was this one.
Attachments
Wilson 2 3.jpg
Wilson 2 1.jpg

Loudbass
Victor O
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:45 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by Loudbass »

Thanks Chunny, in the absence of categorical proof either way, this certainly makes sense to me. BTW, is your pictured machine another in your collection? The comprehensivity and quality of your EMG collection amazes me!

User avatar
chunnybh
Victor III
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 8:17 am
Personal Text: "If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink." Vivian Stanshall
Location: Victoria. Australia
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by chunnybh »

Yes, this Wilson Horn model is another one from my collection. When it turned up it seemed to fit in as the Mk VI followed closely by the Mk VIII. The MK V is such an important find. It fills in a lot of gaps, it also proved that this Wilson Horn machine is obviously earlier. The original soundbox on this Wilson Horn model is a modified Exhibition reproduced which also dates it as being earlier.

User avatar
emgcr
Victor IV
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: E.M.G Davey Mark numbers

Post by emgcr »

I too have always assumed (casually I am afraid and not having read all of Frank’s book for a while) that your Wilson horn model was the missing Mk VI Chunny but I have to say that from a quality of construction point of view there was always a slight question mark in my mind even though it is a extremely interesting example. It is good to consider the subject in detail but strange that there seems to be virtually no public record of the Mk VI either in photographs, advertisements or commentary that I have seen except for the pages 66 and 111 reference you quote from the great book Tom -- "believed identical (to the Mark V) but with storage for 100 records beneath”.

I am persuaded by your excellent analysis of the logical and probable progression of events in spite of the confusing reverse chronological use of some Mark numbers. I vaguely remember the reference to the console model coming up for auction (1993 ?) but did not make the possible connection with the Mk VI---was it advertised as such ? It looks to be a quality construction which was perhaps just too expensive after the Wall Street crash ? Do we know where it is now ?

Post Reply