Anyone got a Columbia 160 portable?

[Steve]

Has anyone got a Columbia 160 portable machine in their collections? I was wondering how they compare to the best of the Victor portables?

[beaumonde]

I do, Steve. I featured it last summer: http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... f=2&t=2443

Unfortunately, I forgot my thread when I deleted the album from my photobucket account. I should edit the post to upload the photos directly here. I will try to remember to do that tonight.

I have only the 1-5 Victor portable to compare it to. The Viva-tonal is much larger and heavier. The 2-55 is probably more comparable in girth and weight. The Victors probably have the edge in performance (by virtue of their superior sound box(es)).

[Steve]

Thanks, Adam. Yes, I would really like to see the pictures when you have time to redo them. I see people compare it to the HMV 102 but if it's an earlier machine of 1928-1930 vintage, then surely it is a fairer comparison to park it alongside the HMV 101 and Victor equivalents?

[beaumonde]

Steve, why particularly the 160? The 161 and 163 (from slightly later, 1928-30 or so) were apparently (judging from surviving examples) far more plentiful.

And you are correct, it would be fairer to compare it to the HMV 101 (which has better sound and is more elegant, IMHO).

[beaumonde]

Okay, I've re-attached the photos from the original post!

[gramophoneshane]

Adam, I dont know if you want to edit (or add to) the motor info, but the Columbia 5a motor is actually a Garrard motor. As far as I know, all english made Columbia spring motors were supplied by Garrard.

Steve, I dont know if you've heard a Columbia No.15 S/B, but IMO, the soundbox (No.?) on the HMV 88 sounds equally as good, if not a little better than the Columbia 15.
Unless the 160 has an exceptional horn design, I cant imagine it sounding any better than an 88 or 97.

[Steve]

Adam, firstly, many thanks for taking the time to re-load your photos. That looks to be a very smart machine. Why the 160 question though? In the UK I've read that that design was numbered the 113a. Looking at your 160 I can see the very obvious similarities between both machines. However the 113a is slightly different: the record compartment is entirely within the lid opening on the inside. The mahogany (?) pull down door does not extend all the way up to the uppermost part of the lid when open. You mention the 161 and 163, have you got any pictures of those machines? I wonder if the 113a (UK) isn't an imported 161 or 163 then?

Shane, as I have never looked under the motorboard of a 113a (with No. 15 s/box) I can't really comment on the horn design. If we can establish exactly which model it is that was 'imported' then we might stand a fighting chance of seeing what the horn looks like. As for the 113a, it is the only Columbia machine of its type available over here and is a very luxurious looking machine. Examples do turn up from time to time (and are sadly ignored due to the non-HMV status!) but I'm considering getting one if I can.

The s/box on an HMV 88 must be a Columbia 'import' with HMV stamp on it anyway, surely, as that machine came into being a long time after the EMI merger?

[gramophoneshane]

Steve,

CP's book has a picture of the 113A on page 35 and states that it is the equivelant to the US160, BUT it actually the equivelant to the US 163.
Here's a picture of the 163 on a US Viva-tonal cover/envelope/bag

[Steve]

Thanks, Shane! I see, so C.P.'s book is wrong to state that it's a 160 then? You are 100% right, it is a 163 'import' then. That machine shown on that record cover IS the very same identical machine that exists in UK as a 113a. So what horn does it have, anyone know? And apart from a few cosmetic differences with the 160, what else was changed?

[phonophan79]

Here is a 162 on Craigslist... not sure if there is any difference from the 160 other than the gold plated topworks? (seems fair at $100)

http://wichita.craigslist.org/atq/1520027514.html