Help wanted: Columbia #2 Reproducer

[phonogfp]

Thanks guys for your help.
George: which reproducer would have been supplied with the AA? I am thinking that the one fitted to mine is not the correct one. (See my photos) The Coronavirus is meaning that I have to self isolate and gives me chance to work on my phonographs. Stay safe to all forum members.
Brian

Brian, the AA was originally supplied with the #2 reproducer, and based upon your photos, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. The #2 employs a stylus bar, which yours does not. The #2 will also have the word "REPRODUCER" on the top surface above the diaphragm. Fortunately, these are relatively easy to find.

George P.

[zapper]

Thank you George for your valued help. Fortunately I have what you described
a #2 reproducer on an un-named phonograph which I bought a few years ago. It also has 'reproducer' around the top. I will retrieve it tomorrow and try it on my AA.
Brian

[phonogfp]

You're welcome!

George P.

[ChuckA]

I purchased this AA years ago, it has the original ID tags from new as shown in the picture. It is possibly as original as you could ever hope to find.

As you can see it came with the larger #5 reproducer, and I have no reason to believe it was changed. The serial number of this AA is 712521 very late production. Hazelcorn mentions in his book the serial number range assigned was 700001-749999 but only about 12,500 were produced. So there is a good possibility that late production AA's had the larger #5 installed.

The original instruction booklet was also with this AA, and although the picture of the reproducer is a drawing and not a photo, you can see which version of the #2 reproducer was used when the instructions were written and it mentions you need to press it on the tube tightly.

The point of this is that any version of the #2 or #5 reproducer could have been supplied with your AA.


Chuck

AA_Pg.pdf

(687.79 KiB) Downloaded 37 times

[zapper]

Thanks Chuck for your info. My machine is #709775 and noticed that the aluminium ends are plain and not "jewelled"
Brian

[JerryVan]

I suppose a dealer, offering an "upgrade" to the #5 reproducer, would not have been unheard of?

[phonogfp]

Chuck,

Thanks for posting the pictures and information on your AA. There will be an article on the AA in the June issue of The Antique Phonograph, but I don't think I'll be giving anything away if I mention that by #713,000 the machine had a later small banner cabinet decal, a 1904 award decal on the back, and a D1 reproducer like yours!

George P.