From Tin Foil to Stereo's "Edison Bias" -- Split Topic

[Marco Gilardetti]

The only disc machine worth owning was a Victor.

Portable disc machines were good for target practice.

Well dear Jerry, not too bad... If you really followed their tips and you hoarded external horn Victors when they were still sold at bargain prices, you should worhip those old collectors as they made you rich!

Jokes aside, I fully understand what you have written, and I agree that before the internet (at least in my case) gramophone repair seemed to be a dead end road, with spare or reproduction parts nowhere to be found. Should a gramophone have broken in the '80s, I think I would have just resigned myself to the idea that it was gone forever. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and still can hardly believe that I can buy a replacement spring or new needles with a click of a button. It's quite amazing how a new technology has helped keeping an old technology efficient and running. I can without doubt affirm that my interest and enthusiasm towards gramophones has been greatly enhanced by the existence of the internet.

[Curt A]

The bias has definitely affected many collectors, who still avoid "no name" machines and lump them all into the category of worthless junk. Granted, many are cheaply made and the sound quality is lacking, but there are many exceptions. Many European machines have interesting mechanical as well as aesthetic qualities which are not seen as desirable by the vast majority of American collectors...

As mentioned, certain Brunswick machines and recordings equal any other "brand name" machine. Sonora is another that is not fully appreciated and I have seen others that are not so familiar that were absolutely stunning and would be highly appreciated, if only the tag said Victor. I was talked out of many Columbia machines by uninformed collectors that advised against them in favor of Edison machines...

After looking at Columbias with an open mind, I found that they possessed many interesting and artistic details which were lacking in Edison machines. Probably because of the biased opinions, I began to look at Edisons with an alternative bias, in that they were plain - even ugly machines, although undoubtedly well built. I started to see that Edison machines were so common that many collectors had dozens of them and the only differences were minor details or model designations. When it came to music, it is obvious that Tom should not have been in charge of artist/song selections.

An old fashioned deaf guy missed out on making Diamond Discs exceptional... The records may be technically superior to others, but what good is that when you can't stand to listen to most of them. Record collectors obviously feel the same way, as evidenced by the high collectibility of late DD recordings which have some great selections, however few and far between...

[Jerry B.]

The bias has definitely affected many collectors, who still avoid "no name" machines and lump them all into the category of worthless junk.

I could't agree more! In fact you can put together a very interesting collection if you purchased only odd shaped "no name" talking machines. I've loved my Keen-O-Phone #1, Modernola, and Puritans that have been important parts of my collection. It makes a collection much more interesting.

Jerry Blais

[EarlH]

Back in the early 70's when I was a kid I asked an old guy that was a phonograph collector about some outside horn Columbia machine I had seen in an antique store, and I remember him saying "If it doesn't say Edison or Victor on it, I wouldn't make room for it out in my driveway!" Bud really didn't even want it at all unless it had an outside horn. But most of those older guys were like that in those days and only bought Victrolas for parts or the records that came with them. I always liked the music, so I wasn't so much bothered by where the horn was. He also warned me about those Edison records with paper labels as they were "Way too new for any real collector and would never be worth anything". Glad I didn't pay any attention to that advice. All of those old guys I knew when I was a kid seemed to favor Edison in a big way though. Cylinder machines are fascinating in their own way of course.

But those guys also knew about those Columbia machines with the Regina music boxes in them. My Dad and I found one of those without the music box in it and when Dad described it to Bud over the phone, he and his wife wasted NO time at all getting up to our house. It was years before I knew why Bud lost all interest in it after he lifted up the turntable! A lot of that stuff is funny now, but it's just how things were I guess. They had space limitations too, and $50 would buy a lot of stuff 50 years ago, much less in the 1950's when you had to put fruit jars with a phonograph on an auction to get a bid.

[Curt A]

The bias has definitely affected many collectors, who still avoid "no name" machines and lump them all into the category of worthless junk.

I could't agree more! In fact you can put together a very interesting collection if you purchased only odd shaped "no name" talking machines. I've loved my Keen-O-Phone #1, Modernola, and Puritans that have been important parts of my collection. It makes a collection much more interesting.

Jerry Blais

Jerry, you proved my point... there are many interesting machines that don't have a Victor or Edison label, like the ones you mentioned in your collection... I'm still thinking about the Lauzon phonograph that was discussed in a recent thread - http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... 14&t=27390

[Marco Gilardetti]

Many European machines have interesting mechanical as well as aesthetic qualities which are not seen as desirable by the vast majority of American collectors...

...and that's very good! Gramophones are so scarce in Europe, especially those with external horns, that if Americans would begin to buy overseas and import them, we would better collect bottlecaps or go fishing altogether...

For what my opinion is worth, I second your sentiments about Edison's cabinetmaking. Very easily surpassed by competitors. At least to my eyes, even "premium" models usually have a plain and uninspiring cabinetry.

[Victrolacollector]

The bias has definitely affected many collectors, who still avoid "no name" machines and lump them all into the category of worthless junk. Granted, many are cheaply made and the sound quality is lacking, but there are many exceptions. Many European machines have interesting mechanical as well as aesthetic qualities which are not seen as desirable by the vast majority of American collectors...

As mentioned, certain Brunswick machines and recordings equal any other "brand name" machine. Sonora is another that is not fully appreciated and I have seen others that are not so familiar that were absolutely stunning and would be highly appreciated, if only the tag said Victor. I was talked out of many Columbia machines by uninformed collectors that advised against them in favor of Edison machines...

After looking at Columbias with an open mind, I found that they possessed many interesting and artistic details which were lacking in Edison machines. Probably because of the biased opinions, I began to look at Edisons with an alternative bias, in that they were plain - even ugly machines, although undoubtedly well built. I started to see that Edison machines were so common that many collectors had dozens of them and the only differences were minor details or model designations. When it came to music, it is obvious that Tom should not have been in charge of artist/song selections.

An old fashioned deaf guy missed out on making Diamond Discs exceptional... The records may be technically superior to others, but what good is that when you can't stand to listen to most of them. Record collectors obviously feel the same way, as evidenced by the high collectibility of late DD recordings which have some great selections, however few and far between...

I could not agree more. In fact another great machine was Cheney and Magnola...Cheney's were beautifully crafted and designed, they were sold by Marshall Fields. I own a Magnola, my first machine, these were beautiful machines and were marketed by M. Shultz Piano Co. in Chicago which made some of the finest pianos. Aside from pot metal hardware and Heineman motors. Parts are pretty much available like other top makes. One would think independent machines (rarer models) would sell for more than name brand common machines. I think this perception was instilled by many early collectors, and the limited selection of good titles.

As far as Edison DD's, there are fewer great selections, but there are some, and the later they are in the production, the rarer and more expensive. Edison DD machines machines limit the listener to music from the 1912-1929 period. A Victor (or other 78 lateral machine) can provide music more effectively, cheaper cost of needles, broader range of music from the late 1800's through the 1930's; and if you don't care about record damage, all the way up to 1960. I personally never recommend a Edison DD machine to a new collector, they usually are dismayed by the cost of replacing the diamond stylus in a reproducer.


I am not going to bash Edison DD machines, they do sound great and probably superior to other makes of machines, the records can be a different story, with many recordings with high surface noise from the WWI era. I love my Edison B-19 and my collection of about 200 DD's (mostly 1915-1925 material). I will say that its a definite tie between a Victor Orthophonic and a Edison machine with a Edisonic reproducer. Each machine has its advantages and disadvantages.