Early Columbia "Favorite" - which reproducer is "correct" ?

[De Soto Frank]

I just unpacked a nice early Columbia "Favorite" table-top machine this evening.

It is golden oak, and has the double-doors, a la Victrola. It has a three-spring motor mounted to a removable wooden board, no metal top-plate. Tone-arm is the early butt-soldered brass taper-tube, with the "pinned-ball" mount for the motorboard attachment.

It came wearing an unmarked Columbia # 6 reproducer ( un-marked in that there's no lettering around the bayonet hub - I have another example that reads "No. 6" and "Patents Pending" around the bayonet hub ).


This # 6 is a REALLY tight fit in the brass socket of the brass arm. I have another early Columbia butt-soldered brass bayonet arm with a # 5 (?) reproducer with "combination mount" - there is a nickeled flange with a bayonet-hub that attaches to a thick rubber washer with a three screws, and the washer attaches to the back of the reproducer body with three more screws - it appears that this could have been fitted to the earlier aluminum arm (via the screws) , or the later machines with the new bayonet attachment. At any rate, with this early rig, the bayonet hub is slightly smaller than the later Grafonolas: the early reproducer fits the early arm fine, later bayonet reproducers ( several # 6 and a "New Columbia") will not fit the early arm. I think they are two different dimensions, this is not a case of pot-metal disease. The early reproducer with its bayonet plate is a loose fit in later Granfonola arms.

All that said, I'm suspicious that my new "Favorite" had its reproducer upgraded at some point.


Would this machine originally have had a Grand / Concert Grand or perhaps # 5 reproducer ?




Thanks !

[Phonofreak]

Frank, The Grafonola Favorite had either a Concert or a Concert Grand reproducer. Your machine came out in 1911. These had the fancy cover on the front with the "notes". The No. 6 reproducer was an upgrade and not original to the machine. The No. 5 and 6 came out later around late 1912 or early 1913. Actually, I like the Concerts better than the later reproducer. I think they are more attractive.
Harvey Kravitz

[Cody K]

I have a 1911 "Favorite" (with the doors) that also has an unmarked No. 6 reproducer on it; same brass tone arm and mount as yours, Frank. I've always assumed that this was the original reproducer, but I don't know this -- Harvey knows his onions and may well be right. I've never removed this reproducer because it, too, is on very tight, and I haven't had to so I've left it in place, since it plays very well and I don't use it much. Obviously I haven't rebuilt it, though I've made some adjustments in place.

I know this doesn't answer your question -- just thought I'd add this data point, though.

[De Soto Frank]

Harvey & Cody -

Thanks for your replies ! ( And for wading through all the "trees" in my original post ! )


I will start scouting for a Concert or Concert Grand reproducer ( is there a difference, or just Columbia playing the "name game" ? )


It is a nice-looking machine, but "it sure ain't no Victrola" in terms of engineering.

The horn is hardly larger than that in a good portable, like a VV 2-65.

One of the neatest features are the "hinges" for the horn doors: the entire pilaster on the corner pivots with the door ! ( I guess that wasn't enough to squeak-past the Victor door patents... )


I guess I got a bit spoiled growing-up with a Victrola IX...

Will post some pictures...

Frank

[Cody K]

I think the design of the early "Favorite" makes it one of the nicest looking table-tops ever. It resembles a little Roman temple, what with the columns on all four corners. And the hinges being built into the front columns is a nice touch. It took me a while to figure out that they're installed/removed with screws at the bottom of the cabinet. Other features I appreciate are the round wooden motorboard, and the completely flat and unmarked surface it gives. It's surprising how much better it looks in its doored iteration than it does once the design is switched to louvers (thanks a lot, Eldridge!).

The off/on speed control is a little goofy, since it allows for some variance in speed each time it's turned on, but I guess that may have been Columbia's accommodation to the fact that they recorded at a nominal 80rpm as opposed to the industry standard, particularly Victor's, of a putative 78rpm. I guess. It's kind of weird, though.

As a player, at least with the No. 6 reproducer I have on mine, I think it sounds very good, if a little on the bright side. But it sounds great with soft needles, which of course lose a little from the high end, and it's capable of good volume with louder ones. It may not be a major engineering marvel, but Columbia was pretty proud of the fact that it was the first really nice inside-horn machine brought to market at a "mere" $50.00 -- which, according to this inflation calculator, which only goes back as far as 1913, had the same buying power in that year as $1180 would today. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Mine is mahogany, and I like the looks of it very much, but I've seen pictures of it in oak, and yours must be a real honey, Frank. Looking forward to pics.

And here's an ad I dredged up, showing it with what is obviously one of the concert reproducers, so as I suspected Harvey is correct. But at the same time, I'm wondering whether the concert was an upgrade option, and the No. 6 the default reproducer? They seem to show up both ways.

[Lucius1958]

I think the design of the early "Favorite" makes it one of the nicest looking table-tops ever. It resembles a little Roman temple, what with the columns on all four corners. And the hinges being built into the front columns is a nice touch. It took me a while to figure out that they're installed/removed with screws at the bottom of the cabinet. Other features I appreciate are the round wooden motorboard, and the completely flat and unmarked surface it gives. It's surprising how much better it looks in its doored iteration than it does once the design is switched to louvers (thanks a lot, Eldridge!).

The off/on speed control is a little goofy, since it allows for some variance in speed each time it's turned on, but I guess that may have been Columbia's accommodation to the fact that they recorded at a nominal 80rpm as opposed to the industry standard, particularly Victor's, of a putative 78rpm. I guess. It's kind of weird, though.

As a player, at least with the No. 6 reproducer I have on mine, I think it sounds very good, if a little on the bright side. But it sounds great with soft needles, which of course lose a little from the high end, and it's capable of good volume with louder ones. It may not be a major engineering marvel, but Columbia was pretty proud of the fact that it was the first really nice inside-horn machine brought to market at a "mere" $50.00 -- which, according to this inflation calculator, which only goes back as far as 1913, had the same buying power in that year as $1180 would today. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Mine is mahogany, and I like the looks of it very much, but I've seen pictures of it in oak, and yours must be a real honey, Frank. Looking forward to pics.

And here's an ad I dredged up, showing it with what is obviously one of the concert reproducers, so as I suspected Harvey is correct. But at the same time, I'm wondering whether the concert was an upgrade option, and the No. 6 the default reproducer? They seem to show up both ways.

Baumbach & Lackey are not absolutely clear in this regard; but their description seems to indicate that that the Concert Grand was replaced with the #6 about the time this model was re-designated the "50". (Their illustration shows the first type, with the doors and a Concert Grand)...

Bill