Diamond Disc Phonograph Packing Slip Database

[fran604g]

Thank you, Larry, great pictures!

I'm pretty certain it's an "R". The only other letter it could be is "P", but it distinctly appears to have the forward and downward leg of the letter to it.

I will add it to the growing list as no. 11) BC-34 #7012, date code on packing slip; J-25-R = October 25 1922 (Phonolair)

Best,
Fran

[fran604g]

I amended the list to reflect the previous post.

1) S-19 #131626, date code on packing slip; H-30-R = August, 30, 1922 (CDBPDX)
2) W-19 #14871, date code on packing slip; N/A (ejackett)
3) S-19 #108064, date code on packing slip; I-15-P = September 15, 1920 (flashpanblue)
4) C-19 #89808, date code on packing slip; K-5-O = November 5, 1919 (Valecnik)
5) Army/Navy (A N) #3116016, date on packing slip; 1-28-19 (barnettrp21122)
6) C-19 #170483, date code on packing slip; I-24-R = September 24, 1922 (eBay)
7) C-19 #162041, date code on packing slip; I-15-Q = September 15, 1921 (Microtrol)
8) H-19 #62729, date code on packing slip; L-11-R = December 11, 1922 (eBay)
9) B-19 #11673, date code on packing slip; N/A (mikejk)
10) BC-34 #N/A, date code on packing slip; L-(N/A)-T, NOTE: “W” stamped under TYPE list (CDBPDX)
11) BC-34 #7012, date code on packing slip; J-25-R = October 25 1922 (Phonolair)

Fran

[fran604g]

Hi folks,

Been awhile for this survey, I thought I should wake it from it's slumber.

Need...more...data...

Fran

[fran604g]

Hiya folks,

It's been a while since I last visited this post, but since then, I've done a little deciphering; by using George's code key for the letter dates found on those types of packing slips, combined with my observances of C 19 packing slips, BC-34 packing slips, my Chippendale database and the BC-34 production numbers found on pg. 162 of Frow's DD Phonograph book, I have complete faith in George's earlier hypothesis.

This is a quote from his post in this thread found here: http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... 255#p92255:

Based on the later record storage door on that S-19, and the serial number of the BC-34, it looks like we're a couple of years too low...

HOLY COW!

I just checked my copy of Frow's Edison Disc Phonographs, and on page 184 is the production schedule for the BC-34 through January 1925! From this, it's clear that BC-34 No.50393 was packed in December 1924! Extrapolating from this, we theoretically have the following year code key:

1919: "O"
1920: "P"
1921: "Q"
1922: "R"
1923: "S"
1924: "T"
1925: "U"
1926: "V"
1927: "W"
1928: "X"
1929: "Y"

If this is correct, Bruce's C-19 was packed on November 5, 1919; the S-19 in the original thread was packed on August 30, 1922; and as suggested above, BC-34 was packed in December 1924 (the number of the day having either been discontinued by then, or overlooked in this instance).

Of course, all this is based upon a tiny sample of three (plus the BC-34 production figures which is a REAL break). Does anyone have a packing slip with a month code greater than "M" or a year code that (according to our provisional list above) does not correlate to known production years? If we can't pick a hole in this provisional key, we might be onto something.

George P.

I have only one anomaly to unravel: it appears that by placing those appropriate slips into the context of my database, only one month would have passed between producing C 19 #162xxx and #170xxx. There was a large uptick in production of Diamond Disc Phonographs during 1922 and 1923 (both years were nearly double the production of 1921), but I find it difficult to believe that 8000 C 19's would have been produced in only one month.

However, I'm sure it could have been a possibility, given that 3000 a month was apparently the typical production for 1919 and 1920, and 8000 units would represent total production of only about ten weeks (annual total production figures provided by the Edison National Historic Site can be found here: http://www.mainspringpress.com/articles.html)

What could be the possible explanation for such an anomaly?

Was the factory possibly doing specialized "runs" on specific models to increase productivity, drop costs and better utilize their recently downsized staff (by February 1922, Edison had reduced its factory staff by ⅔*)? OR had they stockpiled an unusually large quantity of C 19's ahead of, and/or during, the enormous staff reductions of 1921, and later packed and crated them as orders required?

Fran

* Edison, A Life of Invention - Israel, Paul; pg. 455

[phonogfp]

I have only one anomaly to unravel: it appears that by placing those appropriate slips into the context of my database, only one month would have passed between producing C 19 #162xxx and #170xxx. There was a large uptick in production of Diamond Disc Phonographs during 1922 and 1923 (both years were nearly double the production of 1921), but I find it difficult to believe that 8000 C 19's would have been produced in only one month.

Fran,

As I conjectured the other day, perhaps the introduction of the Chippendale Console (CC-32) in April 1922 could account for this uptick IF it shared serial numbering with the regular Chippendale (C-19). The best way to prove/disprove this hypothesis would be to ask owners of the CC-32 to report their serial numbers. You should be able to ascertain if those numbers blend with known serial ranges of the C-19 during the early/mid-1920s.

George P.

[fran604g]

I have only one anomaly to unravel: it appears that by placing those appropriate slips into the context of my database, only one month would have passed between producing C 19 #162xxx and #170xxx. There was a large uptick in production of Diamond Disc Phonographs during 1922 and 1923 (both years were nearly double the production of 1921), but I find it difficult to believe that 8000 C 19's would have been produced in only one month.

Fran,

As I conjectured the other day, perhaps the introduction of the Chippendale Console (CC-32) in April 1922 could account for this uptick IF it shared serial numbering with the regular Chippendale (C-19). The best way to prove/disprove this hypothesis would be to ask owners of the CC-32 to report their serial numbers. You should be able to ascertain if those numbers blend with known serial ranges of the C-19 during the early/mid-1920s.

George P.

Hah! Absolutely, George! That would help to explain the anomaly perfectly. I misunderstood our conversation the other day, my mind was thinking of other "consoles", forgetting entirely of the "Chippendale" console! Oy, what a putz I can be sometimes!

Now I wonder also if the WMC-32 might have shared the same serial number block as the Chippendale "Upright" C 19 model, or any of the other "250" types of instrument. Especially during the post-1919 period, when restructuring of the company occurred.

When refreshing my memory -- a'la Mr. Frow's book -- I see I had previously highlighted a note in my book at the very bottom of page 159, that states:

" N.B. With the arrival of the CC-32 Chippendale Console and its contemporary WMC-33 William and Mary Console, an earlier unsuspecting numbering system is revealed. It is not known how all the preceding models represented nos 1 to 31, but the Jacobean of late 1918 was allocated no.25, and the first three models of 1912 bore numbers."

This statement is pretty ambiguous, and confuses me.

Does he suggest that each model had a manufacturing number designated to it? Could these numbers then have been used for tracking the individual models through various stages of assembly on the factory floor? If so, it might mean that models sharing common assemblies could also share a common serial numbering block?

It just starts me wondering...

Best,
Fran

[phonogfp]

When refreshing my memory -- a'la Mr. Frow's book -- I see I had previously highlighted a note in my book at the very bottom of page 159, that states:

" N.B. With the arrival of the CC-32 Chippendale Console and its contemporary WMC-33 William and Mary Console, an earlier unsuspecting numbering system is revealed. It is not known how all the preceding models represented nos 1 to 31, but the Jacobean of late 1918 was allocated no.25, and the first three models of 1912 bore numbers."

This statement is pretty ambiguous, and confuses me.

Does he suggest that each model had a manufacturing number designated to it? Could these numbers then have been used for tracking the individual models through various stages of assembly on the factory floor? If so, it might mean that models sharing common assemblies could also share a common serial numbering block?

It just starts me wondering...

Best,
Fran

Frow's prose (pretty good, huh?) can sometimes leave us all scratching our heads. In this instance I believe he is referring only to the model numbers such as J-25, CC-32, WMC-33, BC-34, etc. I don't think any of that is relevant to your serial number research.

George P.

[fran604g]

Frow's prose (pretty good, huh?) can sometimes leave us all scratching our heads. In this instance I believe he is referring only to the model numbers such as J-25, CC-32, WMC-33, BC-34, etc. I don't think any of that is relevant to your serial number research.
George P.

Thanks George.

Geez, what it would be like to find some actual factory production documents.

Best,
Fran