HMV 101 portable, in dark blue color

[nostalgia]

I came across this dark blue 101 portable some days ago, and could not resist it at a mere 40 euro asking price,
and since I could pick it up by car only 30 minutes drive from me, no further transport costs was involved.
It has some flaws, and I may have to install a new spring, since it is not spinning, but upcoming service will reveal more about that.
I wanted to share the photos, since the dark blue 101 is pretty hard to find as I know it, and it is also not too easily spotted on the photos in the His Masters Gramophone book.
I initially almost dropped it from the photos received from the seller, at first believing it was black when viewing the outer case photos, but when opening more photos, I realized it was a dark blue 101. I must find a way to cover the area around the manual brake, maybe a shoe polish can work, I will look in previous threads here, since I know some links were posted in the past about suitable shoe polishes in different colors. The case also need a facelift. It has an original no 4 HMV soundbox, in very good condition, I removed it during the car drive, and it is therefore not viewable on the photos.

[Inigo]

Very nice, and cheap! These are very easy to repair, and spare parts are everywhere.
wish I lived there, what findings! I two 101s, a late black one bought in 1998 for 210 euro, and an earlier crocodile brown model which I bought three or four years later, for much less, some 120 euro. This later one, being so special, must have costed a lot more, but that is the market!
These 101s sound great. The 102 is made to be better, but this doesn't prevent me for being much in love with the 101s. I love that sound... And the tracking alignment is better in the 101, with a much longer tonearm. And the no4 mica soundbox, when properly readjusted, sounds incredible!

[epigramophone]

A thorough clean may reveal more of the dark blue colour. I use a car upholstery cleaner, applied neat with a damp sponge. After a couple of minutes it can be wiped off with a damp cloth, which will need to be rinsed frequently as you may be surprised at the amount of dirt removed. After the final rinse the case should be dried quickly with an old towel.

Be careful at every stage not to get the case too wet, otherwise there is a risk of softening the glue and causing the case covering to lift.

[nostalgia]

Inigo, yes they are easy to repair,luckily I also have a "fake green" 101, that I can use for spare parts, in addition to an extra black 101 bought for 25 euro in November, in total it gives me a fair amount of spare parts, if needed. You have a brown crocodile:) Well, that is also an excellent find, I do not yet own any crocodile 101's. There was one for sale in my area one month back, a blue crocodile,but the ending price was 140 euro, so I had to drop it. Myself I also have a very weak spot for the 101 models, also after having been servicing and dissassembling both the 101 and 102 model. The funny part is that the (according to the His Masters Gramophone book) rarest colors also came my way first, since I now own both the grey and the dark blue colored models of the 101,( in addition to the common black model).

Epigramophone: I have so far used Swarfega Classic Hand Cleanser Gel for cleaning my portables. If you have even better result with a car upholstery cleaner, will you please post a photo or link of the product you are using?

[epigramophone]

I use Decosol vinyl and leather cleaner which came in a bottle, but now it only comes in an aerosol which I have not tried.
Swarfega should work, provided that you use the smooth version, not the one with added abrasive particles.

[shoshani]

Very nice, and cheap! These are very easy to repair, and spare parts are everywhere.
wish I lived there, what findings! I two 101s, a late black one bought in 1998 for 210 euro, and an earlier crocodile brown model which I bought three or four years later, for much less, some 120 euro. This later one, being so special, must have costed a lot more, but that is the market!
These 101s sound great. The 102 is made to be better, but this doesn't prevent me for being much in love with the 101s. I love that sound... And the tracking alignment is better in the 101, with a much longer tonearm. And the no4 mica soundbox, when properly readjusted, sounds incredible!

Over the past few months I have developed a strong preference for the 101 over the 102. I've also taken to playing records made after 1940 or so on the 101 with a 5A soundbox whose back was refitted with the isolator to fit the smaller bore tonearm, and I've so far been very happy. Unlike fitting that to my 109s, the tracking angle (as measured by the late Graham Barber's angle protractor setup) remains good, without going into a dangerous angle that might damage the groove. (The 101 always seemed to have better bass than the 102, which I attributed to the difference in soundboxes - but the bass is still very strong on the 101 with a 5A, which says to me that the difference is more the tonearm and horn.)

[Inigo]

I have arrived to the conclusion that the 102 has more bass than the 101. Overall, the 102 sound system is a good progress over the 101. The apparent difference in bass is only apparent, for the 102 has more high treble end than the 101, what makes one think that there is less bass. The 101 lower high end gives a more mellow tone, and the apparent sensation of more bass, due to the lack of treble. And the difference is indeed in the soundbox. The no 5/a/b had a fuller Freq range than the no4. If you've done tests using a no 5 type installed in the narrow tonearm machines of 1925 (101, 103, 109, 126/7, etc.) you will have noticed the improvement in frequency range over the no4. So their horns are as good as the later ones, the difference is in the soundbox design, following the principles of Maxwell and Harrison orthophonic design.

[nostalgia]

Thank you, Roger, for posting the product name you are using to clean your portables. I have been using Swarfega, but sometimes I feel some water may be needed to do a more thorough clean, but until now I have not dared to use any water. I was not able to find the product you recommend in my area, but will carefully try a leather cleaner. I found a product named Autoglym leather cleaner, and will test it first on a black portable I use for spares, before starting to clean this dark blue portable.
I am not able to take part in the discussion of the frequency range of the 101 vs the 102 at this time, and what portable sound best. When I have been servicing all my portables, hopefully during the upcoming spring/summer, I will spend more time on the soundboxes, testing switching soundboxes etc.
The only thing I can say at the time of writing this, (after having been servicing and disassembled them both) is that I so far somehow feel more attracted to the design and feeling of the 101 portable, than the 102. The 102 has a more bulky design (in particular the later models), and also I feel the introduction of plastic is not exactly something I like. I understand plastic was a big thing when it arrived back then, but in today's world the status of "plastic fantastic"' in production (and general use) is at an all time low. I am neither too happy about the metal motorboard on the 102, compared to the 101 motorboard, where they still kept woodwork around the horn outlet .

[shoshani]

I have arrived to the conclusion that the 102 has more bass than the 101. Overall, the 102 sound system is a good progress over the 101. The apparent difference in bass is only apparent, for the 102 has more high treble end than the 101, what makes one think that there is less bass. The 101 lower high end gives a more mellow tone, and the apparent sensation of more bass, due to the lack of treble. And the difference is indeed in the soundbox. The no 5/a/b had a fuller Freq range than the no4. If you've done tests using a no 5 type installed in the narrow tonearm machines of 1925 (101, 103, 109, 126/7, etc.) you will have noticed the improvement in frequency range over the no4. So their horns are as good as the later ones, the difference is in the soundbox design, following the principles of Maxwell and Harrison orthophonic design.

I'm on the lookout right now for a frequency test record. Unfortunately, the only ones I see these days are a bit pricey. But if I can get my hands on one, I'd love to do a test with the No 4 and the 5a on my 101, and the 5b on my 102. I'm very interested in the peaks and dips inherent in each setup. (I'm also not surprised that we have come basically to opposite conclusions; tonal perception is inherently subjective and no two of us will hear things in an identical way. My 54 year old ears, for example, do not hear the highs that they did when they were only 20. Thus, instrumental measurement is probably the way to go...)

[Inigo]

Yes. Instrumentation and measurement is the only way to assess. When listening to a Gramophone, one gets used to the sound very soon, and objective judgement is nearly impossible, save for fast comparisons. Any gramophone, when you listen to it for a while ends in a good sound... I've noticed this in many occasions, and my short collection (12 machines) has every example except a huge external horn machine.