Edison Triumph With Repeater

[phonogfp]

This is one of the most valuable aspects of this forum. Thanks to Ken, this repeater is beginning to take shape as a SINGLE unit rather than the mixture of parts that I was suggesting. With the appearance of a second example, this looks like perhaps Peter Weber redesigned his earlier repeater to incorporate a return screw (similar to that which would be used in the Model D) while retaining the earlier trip mechanism mounted on the carriage and below the straight-edge. Fascinating - - as I wrote earlier, I've never seen this before. I'm delighted to know that this is ONE repeater instead of a hodge-podge!

As for a date, the Class M/Spring Motor/Triumph serial numbers all run together, and other variants such as coin-ops, Ideal/Idelia, and Alva were mixed in as well. This really complicates the dating process through extrapolating sales figures, because all these models are treated separately in the sales data. I've tried several formulas to account for this, but have not yet found the perfect key.

At this point, "early 1904" is as close as I can get to a date for Triumph No.39239. It carries the Nov. 17, 1903 patent on its dataplate (so it's no earlier than that), and the Model D Repeater was introduced in October 1904. Once the Model D was introduced, this Weber design would have been obsolete and no longer marketed by Edison (if it ever was). That leaves at most a 10-month window.

The return screw design had been used inconsistently since the late 1880s on Edison Phonographs, so there's no reason to associate it exclusively with the Model D which is the one we see most often these days.

Ken, you made my day too! I'm almost as happy as Danny...

George P.

[kendphono]

George,

Good information. What about the base casting being close to a Class M. It has the holes for the pulleys and the tensioning screw for the belt. I am not aware of any of the Triumphs having that screw. Now the carriage arm is set up for a later reproducer, likely a winged C. This could be a mix and match of parts. The carriage looks the same an the one on Denny's without the shaver parts attached. I don't think his casting has the holes for the pulleys or the tensioning screw. Also note that mine has a pair of screw holes in front of the spiral return. This may suggest that the spiral screw mount was tried in the front and then moved back. More in the line of a prototype. This is what I found when I worked on Charlie Hummel's 4 spring homes. One had a lot of spare holes to position the parts in different locations while the other was pretty clean. Prototype and then finished product?

Ken

[danrclem]

[quote="phonogfp"] The return screw design had been used inconsistently since the late 1880s on Edison Phonographs, so there's no reason to associate it exclusively with the Model D which is the one we see most often these days.[quote]

George, were all of the repeaters used on Edisons up to the point of the "D" designed by Weber and if so were they all the same except for the two (and possibly others designed the same way) in this thread?

You also mentioned that my speed indicator was a 1904 or later design. What would be the difference between mine and the earlier units? Are there any other differences between the 1904+ models and the earlier models?

I hope I'm not wearing you out with questions.

[phonogfp]

What about the base casting being close to a Class M. It has the holes for the pulleys and the tensioning screw for the belt. I am not aware of any of the Triumphs having that screw.

The casting certainly looks like a late Class M ("Balmoral" or other variant).

Now the carriage arm is set up for a later reproducer, likely a winged C. This could be a mix and match of parts. The carriage looks the same an the one on Denny's without the shaver parts attached.

The carriage arm on No.39239 seems consistent with the age of the casting. If this top casting was originally used with a coin-op, the shaver would not have been fitted.

Also note that mine has a pair of screw holes in front of the spiral return. This may suggest that the spiral screw mount was tried in the front and then moved back. More in the line of a prototype.

Here comes that dream again! It's hard know for sure. It seems odd that those two holes would have been drilled so close to the edge of the casting in the first place. Perhaps there was another part that was removed (possibly for coin-op use?). All speculation, of course...

Thanks again for posting, Ken. Great to see a second one of these repeaters.

George, were all of the repeaters used on Edisons up to the point of the "D" designed by Weber and if so were they all the same except for the two (and possibly others designed the same way) in this thread?

No, Peter Weber was one of a number of inventors who designed repeaters for the Edison Phonograph. You can see some of these various repeaters on the Antique Phonograph Society website:

http://www.antiquephono.org/videos/

You also mentioned that my speed indicator was a 1904 or later design. What would be the difference between mine and the earlier units? Are there any other differences between the 1904+ models and the earlier models?

Before June 1904, Edison Triumph Phonographs had a speed adjustment screw much like those on the Standard and the Home. Starting in June 1904, an index with the numbers of rpms (120, 140, 160) was stenciled around the adjustment screw, and a pointer was added so that the owner could quickly adjust speed to play new 160 rpm records, later brown wax records (140), and earlier brown wax records (120). This simple stencil and pointer was also a Peter Weber patented feature.

As for other differences between the 1904+ models and earlier models, there are quite a few; some of them obvious and others subtle. These are described and illustrated in detail in George Frow's Edison Cylinder Phonograph Companion (available as an e-book from the Mulholland Press).

I hope I'm not wearing you out with questions.

Never!

George P.

[danrclem]

I started cleaning the Triumph today. I'm using Goop and a soft bristle toothbrush. Pete had told me about Gojo but I couldn't find any so I searched for alternatives and came up with Goop as a good substitute.

There are a couple things I'm not sure about. I know oak is a very tough wood so can I use a stiff bristle toothbrush? Will using a circular pattern with the toothbrush damage the wood? The other thing is that the finish on mine is almost black. I think the black may be the old finish after deteriorating. When I take the black off there doesn't seem to be any finish underneath it. Should I proceed taking the black off or should I leave it alone? The finish right around the base that was covered by the top is a honey looking color. I was hoping that under the black there would be that honey colored oak but it's not happening.

George, thanks for the links. I really appreciate your help and everybody else's too.

Danny

[phonogfp]

I wouldn't use a toothbrush - - at least not at first. Just apply the Goop, let it sit for a minute or so, and then wipe if off. See if that doesn't clean it properly. If heavily soiled, you may need to repeat. Avoid the toothbrush except in crevices, and then only AFTER the Goop has soaked.

George P.