Nice Zonophone on Ebay for $899

[phonogfp]

Is it my imagination, or is the reproducer a modern repro on the D..???.

I don't think so, but again, diagnosing by pictures can be pure guesswork. The sound box looks like it has been rebuilt with red gasket material. Most interesting to me is the ENGRAVING behind the diaphragm. I've never seen this, nor have I seen one labeled "Concert" rather than "V Concert." Early production?

If it is a reproduction, someone went to a lot of trouble to engrave, where most originals have a paper label.

George P.

[briankeith]

How about this other Zonophone on EBay ??

[vic-b]

Yup. Definitely a reproduction Concert-V reproducer on the "D" up for auction.

As for the "Home," if the horn is not reproduction, the elbow is reproduction from Wyatt's in California. These are actually copper. The give away is the thumb screw. I have never seen a Zonophone long throat reproducer without Zonophone imprinted on it. Yes, this is the later Exhibition style reproducer, if it is Zonophone. The travel arm is solid, not concave or hollowed underneath, as it is supposed to be. So it is surely reproduction.

[phonogfp]

Yup. Definitely a reproduction Concert-V reproducer on the "D" up for auction.

Ah - good to know. I've never seen this reproduction version of the V Concert before. Can you tell us something about it?

Who made it?

Do you know about when they were made?

George P.

[vic-b]

Ah - good to know. I've never seen this reproduction version of the V Concert before. Can you tell us something about it?

Who made it?

I am also at a loss for the maker. This is probably a "one off." Definitely NOT an old one from Mirek Stehlik, not JAS Antiques, who are seeling good reproductions on ebay. Here is a link:

High-Quality Reproduction Zonophone Zon-O-Phone V Concert Phonograph Reproducer

There are many things wrong with the reproducer that is on the "D," not the least of which is the incorrect engraving, incorrect needle bar, incorrect tension ring holding the diaphragm, and incorrect area where the screws hold the needle bar onto the reproducer.

Best,
Jeff

[gramophone78]

Here is a pic of the one on the D in question. To me, the body doesn't even seem nickel plated, but rather aluminum.
Certainly does not match the other nickel parts on the machine.

66_4.jpg (106.59 KiB) Viewed 1386 times

[phonogfp]

There are many things wrong with the reproducer that is on the "D," not the least of which is the incorrect engraving, incorrect needle bar, incorrect tension ring holding the diaphragm, and incorrect area where the screws hold the needle bar onto the reproducer.

Best,
Jeff

No argument from me that the sound box on the Zono D differs from the originals that I own, have examined, and/or photographed, and from every reproduction I've ever seen (I'm familiar with Mirek's and Justin's, as well as others). But to "differ" does not necessarily mean it's "incorrect." I'm certainly not claiming the sound box on the D is original, but just because we've never seen one like it doesn't automatically mean it's a reproduction. I've been collecting for 48 years, but I still don't think I've "seen it all."

Here is a pic of the one on the D in question. To me, the body doesn't even seem nickel plated, but rather aluminum.
Certainly does not match the other nickel parts on the machine.

Also agreed, but I'm not prepared to pass final judgement based on photos of that quality. The bezel looks like shiny brass, and as Jeff points out, there are differences between this sound box and known production examples. If it weren't for the engraving, I'd be far more skeptical. But at this point I lack reliable data. I'd like to see a couple of good-quality photos of this sound box (or better yet - see it in person!) before immediately writing it off.

Would I bid on this machine under the presumption that the sound box is original? Absolutely not. Where my wallet is concerned, I'd need to bid as though it's a reproduction. But as an historian, I cannot conscientiously pronounce a poorly-photographed item a "reproduction" simply because I've never seen another one like it. Further investigation is called for. This is merely a difference in philosophy.

George P.