Earliest Zonophone?

[gramophone78]

I made a cleaner pic of the March 1899 ad for the thread.

[phonogfp]

Allen, I sent you a PM on March 31, but you haven't read it, so I will provide some additional information here.

I think I can offer definitive proof of when the Valiquet-designed Zonophones appeared on the market, as found in the National Gramophone Corporation Minutes, as found in NY Court of Appeals Records and Briefs.

Feb.17, 1900: Page 182, sec.541-547: This contains a general explanation of why the Valiquet-designed Zonophone did not appear in 1899.
Sec. 551: “Our new machine [the Zonophone] has been completed at last and will probably be put on the market before the end of the month.”

March 10, 1900: page 186, Sec . 557: “...the Executive Officers of this corporation are hereby authorized to make the necessary arrangements with the Universal Talking Machine Company for the placing of their type of talking machines on the market.”

This unequivocally demonstrates that the Valiquet Zonophones had not reached the market as of March 10, 1900.

As for footnote #3 in the Dec. 2011 article, I discovered the problem is a simple typographical error. The June 1900 Phonoscope, page 9 was the intended source. However, it does not specifically discuss the drilling of records.

If I were re-writing the article today I would also reference Ray Wile's ARSC article, The Gramophone Becomes a Success in America, 1896-1898. In it, Ray acknowledged that the National Gramophone Company was paying for all recording costs. Seaman/Owen may rightly have considered those records to be the property of the National Gramophone Company/Corp. and (my presumption) that they were thus within their rights to modify their property to accommodate the Zonophone turntable pin. Logically, who else WOULD have drilled the holes? Certainly not Berliner. It may be that Duranoid would have done the drilling at National's behest, but the general crudeness of the holes argues against that (in addition to Duranoid taking such a risk in incurring the wrath of its long-time client, Berliner). In either event, National was the moving force behind the existence of the extra holes in Berliner records for obvious financial reasons.

George P.

[vic-b]

The first style of Model C had no flat area at all on the sides, but had continuous ribbed molding horizontally (on all 4 sides, corner to corner). I am working on an article as we speak. I reprinted the first Zonophone flyer many years ago and the first three types (U.S.) can be seen there.

I used to have an unmarked Zonophone with ribbing on the case all the way around. Unfortunately, I sold it. The only photograph I have is cropped from a much larger photograph, so the image pixelates when you expand it. Might this be the "ribbed C" you all were talking about earlier? Does any one have a photo they can post? (If it is the "ribbed C" and I sold it, I am going to be angry with myself!!!)

Regards,
Jeff

[phonogfp]

Don't be angry with yourself, Jeff.

Here's what the early "ribbed" C looks like:

George P.

[Starkton]

If Seaman were actually selling the Valiquet Zonophone, starting in Oct of 1899, why would he keep it a commercial secret?

Of course he couldn't sell the "Valiquet Zonophone." As George pointed out this "new model" wasn't ready before March 1900.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Seaman didn't produce "old model" gramophones, designated Zonophones, in Valiquet's factory to bridge the gap of six months. The logical consequence would be that after Seaman prematurely cut off his supplies in October 1899, having no machines to offer as the "new model" wasn't ready in time, the disc talking machine market in the USA came to a standstill just before the start of the important Christmas trade.

Was this really the case?

[AllenKoe]

The logical consequence would be that after Seaman prematurely cut off his supplies in October 1899,

I assume in this context, you mean that the Berliner Co cut off Seaman, on Oct. 2, 1899?

We do not know how many machines Seaman already had in his own inventory, from previous orders.

Are YOU suggesting that Seaman (and/or the Valiquet "factory") were making ersatz 'trademark Berliners' (looking like the actual machines)? Is this the "machine" that was sold by Seaman after Oct 1899 and before March of 1900?

Certainly the National Gramophone Corp said they were only selling the previous model (bought from Berliner) for the financial year of 1899. In 1899, I believe that Seaman paid Berliner a large sum - $188,966. - for goods and supplies.

Are you suggesting that there is a type or style of Gramophone unknown to modern collectors, representing Seaman's activities for the 6 months between Oct 1899 and Mar of 1900? Or that he made copycat machines so exact that they have escaped our detection?

I see that the Owen letter to Johnson (Nov 1899) is cited in Martland's new book. Do you have the page number handy?

Thanks.

Allen

[phonogfp]

If Seaman were actually selling the Valiquet Zonophone, starting in Oct of 1899, why would he keep it a commercial secret?

Of course he couldn't sell the "Valiquet Zonophone." As George pointed out this "new model" wasn't ready before March 1900.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Seaman didn't produce "old model" gramophones, designated Zonophones, in Valiquet's factory to bridge the gap of six months. The logical consequence would be that after Seaman prematurely cut off his supplies in October 1899, having no machines to offer as the "new model" wasn't ready in time, the disc talking machine market in the USA came to a standstill just before the start of the important Christmas trade.

Was this really the case?

This letter To the Stockholders of the National Gramophone Corporation for the period March 1, 1899 - December 31, 1899 offers some clues as to what was happening during fall 1899 and spring 1900:

"...we placed great reliance upon direct production of a new type of gramophone [the Valiquet Zonophone] which we had every assurance of being able to put upon the market last spring [1899], and relying upon that, we reduced the price of ourv $25 machine [the Berliner Gramophone] to $18 it being the intention to sell the new type machine [the Valiquet Zonophone] at $25 in place of the former $25 machine.
"Conditions presented themselves wholly unexpected, which made it impossible to secure the new type and we were left in the unenviable position of being compelled to fill our orders with the old type of machine, the price of which we had voluntarily reduced ⅓ to the wholesale trade, to say nothing of the demoralization among the wholesalers, who, having been led to expect the new model held back orders for the new model."

A couple of paragraphs later...

"It took until late in the summer [1899] to appease our trade with the old type machines [Berliner Gramophones] while endeavoring to get the new type machine [Valiquet Zonophone] ready for the fall trade.
"Here another misfortune overtook us because of the condition of the iron and steel market which was such as to make it absolutely impossible to procure enough of any kind of machines at any price."

I don't recall reading about any similar difficulty with iron and steel that Edison or American Graphophone experienced in late 1899. I suspect that this was a bit of window dressing to veil from the stockholders some poor decisions made in late 1899.

A few paragraphs further...

"The month of February [1900] promises at the present time to be even better than January. It must also be added that the first 13 days of February our average daily shipment of machines was 75, and of records 3000."

These machines could only have been Berliner Gramophones, as pointed out 4 paragraphs later (and which I quoted earlier):

"Our new type of machine [the Valiquet Zonophone] has been completed at last and will probably be put upon the market before the end of this month [February 1900]."

As we know from the quote I provided in a previous post, the Executive Officers of the National Gramophone Corporation were not given authorization "...to make the necessary arrangements with the Universal Talking Machine Company for the placing of their type of talking machines on the market” until March 10, 1900. Based upon the speed we have seen over the previous six months, the Valiquet Zonophone most likely didn't reach the market until April at the earliest, but certainly by May 1900.

Where did the National Gramophone Corporation get the Berliner Gramophones it was selling during the early months of 1900? Either Frank Seaman really stocked up in October 1899, or National was buying them from another source - - perhaps directly from Berliner. I'd be most interested in knowing for sure!

George P.

[Starkton]

Where did the National Gramophone Corporation get the Berliner Gramophones it was selling during the early months of 1900? Either Frank Seaman really stocked up in October 1899, or National was buying them from another source - - perhaps directly from Berliner. I'd be most interested in knowing for sure!

The price reduction of $7 must have eaten up Seaman's mark-up completely. I find it very unlikely that Seaman stocked up, or secretly bought, many thousands of Berliner gramophones, paying Johnson's (at cost plus 25%, see Aldridge, Bayh, p. 24-25) and especially Berliner's (40% on Johnson's price) fat margin to bridge an unpredictable delay of his new $25 model, only to sell them off cheaply. On November 1, 1899, Frank Seaman and Orville La Dow even travelled to Philadelphia to demand that the Berliner Gramophone Company take on supplies of the "Zonophone." (see: Bayly and Kinnear, The Zonophone Record, page 7). This move would make no sense at all if he had nothing to sell at this time.

I am of the opinion that Seaman was clever enough to use Valiquet's factory with 40 workmen to build up machines after the pattern of Berliner gramophones. We should look out for variations in the make, resulting from different production processes in two factories. Perhaps we can then identify the earliest "Zonophones" of 1899. Saving Johnson's and Berliner's mark-up, Seaman could easily survive the six months period and nevertheless seriously harm Berliner's camp.

I see that the Owen letter to Johnson (Nov 1899) is cited in Martland's new book. Do you have the page number handy?

It is cited on page 60.

[AllenKoe]

(see: Bayly and Kinnear, The Zonophone Record, page 7). This move would make no sense at all if he had nothing to sell at this time.

One cannot rely on Bayly and Kinnear for such verification. They are very confused about Zonophone history, sad to say.

Are you saying that the full text of the Nov 4, 1899 Owen letter to Johnson ('the Zonophone has arrived') appears on p. 60 of Martland's newest book?

Thanks.

Allen

[phonogfp]

I am of the opinion that Seaman was clever enough to use Valiquet's factory with 40 workmen to build up machines after the pattern of Berliner gramophones. We should look out for variations in the make, resulting from different production processes in two factories. Perhaps we can then identify the earliest "Zonophones" of 1899.

No doubt the Berliner "Improved Gramophone" could have been copied, but such a flagrant violation of Johnson's patent would have surely resulted in immediate litigation. I'm not aware of Berliner or Johnson ever accusing Seaman, National, or Universal of violating Johnson's motor/governor patent; only Berliner's 1895 patent (No.534543) on a stylus driven by the record groove. I'd like to be educated on this point if such litigation documentation exists.

I don't recall ever seeing any ersatz "Improved Gramophones" lacking a serial number or obvious differences in manufacture. But again, I'd love to see one!

George P.