Columbia BG converted to a BGT

saxymojo · Post by **saxymojo** » Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:38 pm

Hi

I was just wondering what the thoughts are on this machine. It started life as a BG, the seller has now converted it to a BGT by making the parts required, he seems to think, this now makes it a BGT. I would have preferred it to remain a BG.

What do you think? would you want to own it?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Columbia-BGT ... Sw5dNWobZw

Cheers Marcel

AZ* · Post by AZ* » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:28 pm

No. It's a repro.

I have no problem substituting repro parts that are missing like a crank, crane or elbow, and I'll even add a repro wooden horn, but converting a BG to a BGT is not for me.

ChuckA · Post by **ChuckA** » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:29 pm

saxymojo wrote:Hi

I was just wondering what the thoughts are on this machine. It started life as a BG, the seller has now converted it to a BGT by making the parts required, he seems to think, this now makes it a BGT. I would have preferred it to remain a BG.

What do you think? would you want to own it?

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Columbia-BGT ... Sw5dNWobZw

Cheers Marcel

If you don't mind having the wrong back bracket & tonearm assembly, a bad refinishing job, wrong crank and don't mind looking at it from a distance - it's OK (NOT)

NO!

Chuck

Jerry B. · Post by **Jerry B.** » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:00 pm

Owners of BGs were encouraged to convert them when they were a current machine. I wouldn't be discouraged from buying such a machine. I wouldn't personally convert a BG to a BGT but if it were recently done properly with original parts, I would not kick it out of the basement. But I would draw the line with all the replica parts used to convert this machine. The asking price is probably more than I'd expect to pay for an authentic BGT.

Jerry Blais

Post by **Bruce** » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:53 pm

I must admit the machine looks quite nice considering that the owner rebuilt it from scratch. It is refreshing to see an honest seller on Ebay who admitted to and described the restoration he did to the BG.

Still way too much for me but maybe a non collector will scoop this machine for display.

Bruce

Phonofreak · Post by **Phonofreak** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:45 am

At a glance, it looks like a nice machine. But close up, it looks kind of cheesy. Like Jerry B. said,(with my words) Back in the day, original owners were encouraged to upgrade thier machines to the latest and greatest. I personally see nothing wrong with a conversion as long as it was done like it was 100 = years ago. That's with original and correct parts. When a restoration or modification is done, it has to look like everything is together for the past 100+ years.
Harvey Kravitx

ChuckA · Post by **ChuckA** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:56 am

Bruce wrote:I must admit the machine looks quite nice considering that the owner rebuilt it from scratch. It is refreshing to see an honest seller on Ebay who admitted to and described the restoration he did to the BG.

Still way too much for me but maybe a non collector will scoop this machine for display.

Bruce

You do realize that he isn't telling the whole truth? Compare his tonearm (bottom picture) to a real BGT (top picture):

Notice the position of the tonearm in relation to the reproducer. When you use the back bracket from a BET, that is what you get. Also the slide tube is from a BET

I know that from experience, I wasn't paying close attention at an auction and ended up buying one just like that. But I only got burned for $900 not almost $4K.

Chuck

saxymojo · Post by **saxymojo** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 1:18 am

Hi

Well spotted Chuck, do you have a catalog showing the BGT?

I have been chatting on a facebook page for Gramophone collectors that the seller is also apart of, I got called names for offering my opinion on this machine.

I would like to see the "Certificate of authenticity" that is offered with the machine.

Cheers Marcel

phonohound · Post by **phonohound** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:21 am

It is my belief that BGTs and all of the other Columbia cylinder tonearm phonographs with the slanted carriage, such as the BET, BFT, and BKT were originally equipped with the straight reproducer connector, vs. the horizontal tonearm Graphophones, such as the BQ and BO, which were originally equipped with the arched reproducer connectors. My reason for this is based on the catalog pictures and the number of these phonographs I've seen over the years. The BVT was a slightly different configuration and used a more rounded, longer connector. My guess is since these parts are interchangeable, they have gotten mixed up over time.

Can anyone help confirm?

Thanks!

Scott

TinfoilPhono · Post by **TinfoilPhono** » Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:44 am

^^^^^^
That has always been my impression, based on catalogs and machines I have seen over the years. The U-shaped tube as found on machines with horizontal reproducer like the BO will obviously work on those with an angled reproducer, like the BGT, but it looks out of proportion. At least to my eyes. The more simple angled connector looks a lot better -- and matches all of the catalogs I know of.

That said, the replica connector on the machine in question looks clunky.

Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT

Re: Columbia BG converted to a BGT