Serial Numbers On Columbia Q

[Phonofreak]

I know I have seen a thread on Columbia Q serial numbers,before, but for the life of me, I can't find it. A few months ago, I bought a beautiful first model caseless Q from a fellow Forum member. I said I don't need another Q, but I couldn't pass this up. I know most of the hiding places of these serial numbers in both types. On this one, I can't find this number at all. Like I said, this is an early one. Did the earliest Model Q have a serial number, or were they added later on the early model?
Harvey Kravitz

[Oceangoer1]

Some of the numbers are on the lip/edge of the base. Assuming this is the one that has the plain nickel plated base, like the one in this picture. I'm not sure if this one had a wood base or not, but it had little rubber feet on the bottom, so I'm assuming it was meant to stand on its own.

It could be right in front of and below the governor along the curved edge of the base. I took this screenshot from the eBay listing of the one that sold.

-Connor

[phonogfp]

Man, what a day on the forum... First I find my long-lost uncle Floyd, and now Harvey is looking for a thread that a friend and I were discussing and searching for 8 hours ago! Although Oceangoer has answered the question, here's the interesting thread:

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... 895#p88895

My friend also found another thread showing the earliest Q that I'm aware of:

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... 740#p89740

George P.

[Phonofreak]

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum . Sorry, I couldn't resist. Thanks for finding the information for me. I searched in all the obvious places like the front of the base and no number. This has the original rubber feet, so I know it is a caseless one. It's gotta be around somewhere. Thanks for the help.
Harvey Kravitz

[fran604g]

Some of the numbers are on the lip/edge of the base. Assuming this is the one that has the plain nickel plated base, like the one in this picture. I'm not sure if this one had a wood base or not, but it had little rubber feet on the bottom, so I'm assuming it was meant to stand on its own.

It could be right in front of and below the governor along the curved edge of the base. I took this screenshot from the eBay listing of the one that sold.

-Connor

I actually purchased this Q (#322061). I've noted some stark differences in its construction when compared to my later "2nd" type Q's. For instance: the mandrel drive pulley is a much smaller diameter, and the feedscrew/half-nut are a finer thread pitch. This would indicate that the mandrel turned slower -- and the feed advanced slower -- than the later model; relatively speaking.

This would indicate that these earlier parts are NOT separately interchangeable with the later Q's. I'd like to know when these later changes were implemented. The entire gear train, however, appears to be identical. I plan on completely disassembling this Q and a later model to inspect the mechanisms and compare each gear.

Best,
Fran

[phonogfp]

I actually purchased this Q (#322061). I've noted some stark differences in its construction when compared to my later "2nd" type Q's. For instance: the mandrel drive pulley is a much smaller diameter, and the feedscrew/half-nut are a finer thread pitch. This would indicate that the mandrel turned slower -- and the feed advanced slower -- than the later model; relatively speaking.

At first blush, this could suggest that the later Qs were re-engineered to play cylinders at 160 rpm rather than the pre-1902 loose standards of 144 rpm (ca. 1900) and the even earlier 120/125 rpm. Yet the later Q appeared in 1904 - - two years after the 160 rpm moulded cylinders appeared. Was this a reflection of the non-moulded (slower rpm) brown wax cylinder finally being regarded by Columbia as obsolete?

After the introduction of moulded 160 rpm cylinders in 1902, speed adjustments on phonographs became less and less necessary. Those on nearly all Edison Phonographs were moved inside the cabinets in 1905. Perhaps the early Qs were approaching the limit of their capability when running at 160 rpm, and needed to be redesigned to accommodate the 160 rpm records.

I rarely play my early Qs, but I feel sure that I have played 160 rpm records on them with no problem. Still, changing simple components such as pulleys in order to decrease governor speed while playing might have improved reproduction of the 160 rpm cylinders. Just thinking out loud...

George P.

[fran604g]

I actually purchased this Q (#322061). I've noted some stark differences in its construction when compared to my later "2nd" type Q's. For instance: the mandrel drive pulley is a much smaller diameter, and the feedscrew/half-nut are a finer thread pitch. This would indicate that the mandrel turned slower -- and the feed advanced slower -- than the later model; relatively speaking.

At first blush, this could suggest that the later Qs were re-engineered to play cylinders at 160 rpm rather than the pre-1902 loose standards of 144 rpm (ca. 1900) and the even earlier 120/125 rpm. Yet the later Q appeared in 1904 - - two years after the 160 rpm moulded cylinders appeared. Was this a reflection of the non-moulded (slower rpm) brown wax cylinder finally being regarded by Columbia as obsolete?

After the introduction of moulded 160 rpm cylinders in 1902, speed adjustments on phonographs became less and less necessary. Those on nearly all Edison Phonographs were moved inside the cabinets in 1905. Perhaps the early Qs were approaching the limit of their capability when running at 160 rpm, and needed to be redesigned to accommodate the 160 rpm records.

I rarely play my early Qs, but I feel sure that I have played 160 rpm records on them with no problem. Still, changing simple components such as pulleys in order to decrease governor speed while playing might have improved reproduction of the 160 rpm cylinders. Just thinking out loud...

George P.

George, I think that what you say has more than a little credence. The earlier Q's could be sped up to speeds fast enough to compensate for the higher RPM cylinders. HOWEVER, after the governor end support was mounted to the motor side plate (presumably to increase productivity and reduce costs), the governor weights could absolutely contact the support; as anyone that's run their Q flat out will tell you.

This might explain why the drive pulley was enlarged (and correspondingly the feedscrew/half-nut changed to a coarser thread), thus accommodating the newer record speed(s), slowing down the speed at which the governor spun, and eliminating the possibility of the governor weights contacting the frame.

This change wouldn't have necessitated the need to re-engineer the entire gear train.

Just my $.20.

Fran