Columbia 109/112 109a/112a etc.

[anchorman]

Can someone tell me the differences between these machines? I can’t seem to find definitive specifications anywhere online.

I have a 112a that is pretty nice and has good sound. It has a number 9 soundbox that I rebuilt with new gaskets. Re-entrant horn. The motor on this is a number 50, and even though it needs a good cleaning, it easily plays both sides of a 10” record or a single winding.

Does the non-a version of the 112 have the same style of horn?

What motor does the 112 (non-a) have? Any ideas about the two 109 models?

I have the number 8 soundbox that fits the non-a models and it sounds pretty good on an older grafanola I have from about 1915. I imagine it would be even better with a horn like the one on the 112a

Any input would be most welcome. I’m traveling to the UK and Germany in the next month and looking to bring one or two more of the portsbles home with me, since the prices are so much better than in the USA, and trying to decide which machines would be best.

[anchorman]

If all goes well, I’ll get to experience the sound of the HMV-102 along with some rally nice examples of the EMG machines too, though I doubt I’ll be bringing any of them home!

[anchorman]

Regarding the 202, the big differences I can see are an auto brake, some extra pot metal at the arm pivot, and the number 15 reproducer. Any thoughts on how the number 15 compares in sound quality to the number 9? I’m very happy with the number 9, but have not compared the sound of various reproducers on my 112a, since I don’t have any others that fit at the moment.

[anchorman]

If the 202 has a superior motor, I’d be interested to know.

[epigramophone]

The "a" suffix on both models denotes the introduction of the Plano-Reflex system in 1928/29, shown in these catalogue images.
The 109, 109a and early 201 have the Garrard No.20 motor. The 112, 112a and early 202 have the No.50 motor. These are often stamped "Columbia".
Columbia merged with HMV in 1931 to form EMI. Later Post-EMI merger 201's and 202's have HMV motors.
The earliest 201's and 202's retained the No.9 soundbox which was soon replaced by the No.15. To my ears there is little difference.

[Phono48]

If you are considering buying more Columbia portables, bear in mind that the 201, 202, and 122A have notoriously fragile arm mountings. Made of pot-metal, most of those seen nowadays have suffered to some degree. Apologies if you already knew this!

Barry

[anchorman]

Regarding the arm mountings, I’m not so concerned. The parts are relatively simple, and I have a lathe to make new ones out of brass or aluminum if need be.

How do the nicer Columbias sound compared with the HMV 102? It looks like the soundboxes might be interchangeable between the 102 and the Columbia number 9, number 15 and others. I’ve seen a number of HMV portables that have broken reproducers due to pot metal back breaking. Also not the end of the world to make a replacement, but nice to know if other reproducers can be used without much fuss.

[anchorman]

Thanks for the information about the Plano reflex arms and horns. I had taken them to be somewhat of a gimmick, but maybe there is something to the design?

What is the source of that document? I’d be interested to read more.

Thanks!

[anchorman]

This guy is showing a garrard 5 (5a?) in his 109…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7BP6bfHt50

[gramophoneshane]

Re-entrant horn.

Columbia never had a horn that even slightly resembled a Re-entrant horn.
They were only ever used in Victor/HMV machines.
IMO, Columbia horns were pretty much a gimmick, just like their Plano-reflex arms.
I think any sound improvement over other lesser models probably has more to do with increased overall horn length rather than any actual scientific design principles.