Repro vs original Columbia horn supports

[jboger]

I've posted two pictures that illustrate two front-mount horn supports purportedly by Columbia. I 'd like to know if either or both are originals or repros and why. The "why" is what I'm very interested to learn. And if two people agree, so much the better. I can upload more photos if so desired.

[jboger]

I've come to the conclusion that one can not tell just from a photo. In any case for those people who looked, I do thank you. I will try to look at more of these in hand and come to my own conclusions. I do understand that there are some very good reproductions "out there."

[Jerry B.]

I'n no authority, but the detail on the darker one would indicate it to be original. The lack of defined detail on the longer one suggests it to be reproduction. I would also check the underside of the castings. Is there a recess or are they straight across and filled? That also might be a clue.

Jerry B.

[JerryVan]

I'n no authority, but the detail on the darker one would indicate it to be original. The lack of defined detail on the longer one suggests it to be reproduction. I would also check the underside of the castings. Is there a recess or are they straight across and filled? That also might be a clue.

Jerry B.

Top one: Reproduction
Bottom one: Original

For the reasons well stated above by Jerry B.

[jboger]

I thank both Jerrys (or is that Jerries?). Note the number "10" on the dirty one, which I guess is the length; I haven't measured it yet. Neither is filled. I will post some more pictures of these, plus a travelling arm I have.

If anyone would care to post pictures of his or her repro horn supports, that would be of interest, well, to me but possibly to others as well.

[jamiegramo]

Some repros are solid castings without the hollowed out recess to the underside and are therefore obvious. Other repros do have this recess though. Sometimes you can tell by the size. Repros are made by casting originals, the problem with this is that the copy ends up being around 5% (or more) smaller than the original. This is due to the shrinkage of the molten metal down through being a solid to room temperature. Original support arms were made in different sizes so if a support arm appears to place the needle too short or too far beyond the spindle this may be due to the wrong size arms for the machine in question and the arm still may be original. Alternatively if the arm doesn't seem to get any machine to place the needle at the right point it is likely to be a repro. The matter is further complicated by the fact that a repro support arm may track ok with a repro traveling arm but you can't mix them... also Columbia seem to have produced quite a few different size arms so i'm not sure how reliable this always is...

[jboger]

Here are pictures of the underside of my horn supports. I did "mix" a repro horn support with an authentic travelling arm; it didn't work. Too much wobble. The reproducer leaned heavily to one side and couldn't track right. I take it that the repro support that I have was cast in a mold made from an original support arm and that explains the lack of sharpness. OK, that makes sense to me, although I'm not sure I have a high opinion of Columbia's castings.

I have another support arm that I'm not sure about. I will post a picture of that later. In the meantime, I'd dearly love to see pictures of a well-made repro. I hear that they exist. I'd like to be able to spot them.

[jamiegramo]

Can you measure the projected length of each arm?

[SydneyAde]

I thank both Jerrys (or is that Jerries?). Note the number "10" on the dirty one, which I guess is the length; I haven't measured it yet. Neither is filled. I will post some more pictures of these, plus a travelling arm I have.

If anyone would care to post pictures of his or her repro horn supports, that would be of interest, well, to me but possibly to others as well.

Hello

Thanks you for your posting which I found interesting, together with the advice and comments in response.

I have what I believe to be an original AH support arm (the longer of the two) and a repro AJ support arm, the shorter one,
the other way around to what you have. There is no No 10 on what I believe is my repro.

The approximate length of the longer one (horozintal length from mounting face to center of pivot hole) is approximately 9"
The approximate length of the shorter one (measured as per above) is approximately 7 ⅛".

You mentioned the travel of the travelling arm was uneven. On my shorter one (which I believe to be a repro) at the top face
on the support arm (the face with the hole where the travelling arm face meets the support arm face, where the pin goes through) - It
is very uneven and not flat). I wondered if your repro also had and uneven face, which may cause uneven travel?

I am interested myself in the possibility of having some arms cast, depending on cost, and particularly interested in the advice regarding the
pitfalls of repros, such as shrinkage etc.

Both my support arms have the groove on the underside. Could this be to do with weight? Or was aluminium more valuable then?

I am happy to take more photos, and have attached one of the shorter repro AJ arm.

I'm interested in any advice members might be able to offer.

Sorry pic won't upload, only 30kb?

Ade

[jboger]

Jamiegramo:

My apologies for taking so long to respond. It has been a busy week.

I've uploaded three pictures. The first picture shows three Columbia horn supports, of which the middle one we have identified as a repro on the basis that the detail is poorly defined. The other two are originals. I might add that the pivot hole on the repro is larger in diameter than the others and that this accounts for some of the "slop" in the travelling arm: when a travelling arm is inserted into this reproduction horn support, the arm leans to one side and can not track the record properly.

Lengths of each horn support are indicated in the photo. A word about that. I did not measure the linear length along the curve but rather the displacement from the left edge to the center of the pivot hole. This was eyeballed. I don't think I'm accurate to better than a tenth of an inch (so the one measurement 8.75 in is misleading--I did not measure to a hundredth of an inch).

The second photo compares the detail between the two originals and the repro. And the third shows a lack of a well-defined (or well-cast) pivot in the repro.