What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?

[phonogfp]

Excellent points, Larry.

It may well be that Qs supplied for Languagephone, like those built for Busy Bee, were not originally equipped with mandrel tags.

George P.

[clevelander]

My Q, identical to Larry's (Ser No104955) has the mandrel disc, and was certainly not sold as a Languagephone.
It has the original rubber buffers, and has therefore never been in a case.
Regards,
Alistair.

[Phonolair]

My Q, identical to Larry's (Ser No104955) has the mandrel disc, and was certainly not sold as a Languagephone.
It has the original rubber buffers, and has therefore never been in a case.
Regards,
Alistair.

Very interesting Alistair,

does your Q have TYPE Q stamped on the end above the patent dates.

I wonder if it could have anything to do with the big difference in serial numbers. Yours is just over 100 thousand and mine is over a million.

Best Regards, Larry

[clevelander]

Larry,
No, mine does not have a Q stamp.
My machine has been discussed on this forum previously, and the concensus was that the final number was missing.

[Phonolair]

Larry,
No, mine does not have a Q stamp.
My machine has been discussed on this forum previously, and the concensus was that the final number was missing.

Thanks Alistair

So I guess the mystery goes on. I find it very strange that Type Q is not stamped on the end.

The serial number of yours and mine both fall into the Language Phone serial numbers range, so that may still be a possibility.

For now I'll turn my attention to something else and set this one aside until more information comes to light.

Thanks for every ones input.

Best Regards, Larry