Columbia portables, color range question

[Oedipus]

Thank you; the extra photos confirm my view that the tone arm on the black machine is brass, and clearly both machines have the correct 15B soundbox. The tone-arm rest and the speed index are both unfamiliar to me, although that is not to say I have never seen them before. The woven turntable mat on the black one looks wrong; I am sure that is a replacement. Your comment about the black crackle finish is relevant; it was the smoothness of the lid interior which made me wonder if it had been refinished, and overall the 'crackle' is not as pronounced as usual. For one thing, there is no contrasting colour in the 'cracks'. I wonder if the whole thing has had a coat of ordinary black paint applied at some time (quite a long time ago).

[nostalgia]

Thank you for confirming the soundboxes, now I will remember what this 15B soundbox look like too.
When I disovered the tone arm rest and the speed index, my first thought was that this was an improvement to the model 100, and that this black copy was made in the latest year(s) of the production of the Model 100, even if the total production run of the model was very short. I have used a looking glass to scrutinize both the lid interior and the general appearance of the crackle finish, and what contradicts that it has been repainted, is that there seems to be only one layer of paint on the machine. The photo I upload is blurry, since my phone camera not really can focus on the crackle finish very well, but the total impression is that there is only one layer of covering material, and where the lacquer has peeled off, there is rust or gray metallic shine only. There rightly is no contrasting color in the cracks, I also had that impression, but could this be a result of a new way of adding the lacquer to the machine, and this way also be an "improvement" like the speed index and the tonearm rest?
I am not saying my assumptions or ideas are correct, I just think loudly here:)

I was able to find a few more photos of a Model 100 online, for comparison, as we can see it also was manufactured with a different blue color than my model, where both the cover lid and the interior was blue, unlike my blue model which has a gray cover lid. As one can see from the online photos, the crackle finish appears somewhat different on some of the models.

Whatever is the reality of my model 100, it remains a mystery why the Columbia trademark was not put on the machine, IF it has not been repainted...

[Teak]

My 202 in rare brown:

[epigramophone]

This one has been languishing on eBay for weeks and is cheap, but it lacks the record album which would be difficult to find in brown.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Rare ... SwsB9eQpr6

Our fellow member Oedipus has kindly offered me a spare brown album, so I have bought this Columbia 202 and look forward to collecting it from sunny Exmouth as soon as the current travel restrictions are lifted. This is the Forum at it's best. Many thanks Christopher.

[Oedipus]

On the absence of the lid transfer, if it's not due to a repaint, there are two other possibilities I can think of:

1) the transfer might have started to flake or wrinkle (they do occasionally), and its remains might have been cleaned off for the sake of tidiness.

2) Possibly this machine, being a late one, was sold off for resale in the trade as an anonymous model, or an 'own brand' one by a retailer.

We can but speculate; it is unlikely that we will ever find a definitive answer.

[nostalgia]

Yes, I was already thinking about this last option, since I did not really know the transfer could flake or wrinkle.
And as you say, this is as far as we can get, the rest is speculation.
Thank you again for all help:)


And "Teak", a very nice brown Columbia 202 you got there:))

[Phono48]

With reference to the tone arm support, it looks as though both machines have the original one, but the black one also has an extra piece mounted in the lid. what purpose does that serve?

Barry

[nostalgia]

Both machines have the tonearm support in the depth of the horn, a support that I also from its position will think, over time has added to the tonearm base problems of this model. The only thing I can think of, when testing the machine, is that this "new" lid based tonearm support is faster and easier to use in between changing records?

[Phono48]

Both machines have the tonearm support in the depth of the horn, a support that I also from its position will think, over time has added to the tonearm base problems of this model. The only thing I can think of, when testing the machine, is that this "new" lid based tonearm support is faster and easier to use in between changing records?

Hmm....Good thought, but what could be easier than just flipping the front part of the arm over to rest on the spring clip between the two halves of the arm?
I have a theory about the almost universal problem with the arm bases on the 100s. If they have been stored on their sides for years, I think the weight of the arm and soundbox in the vertical position causes the very thin pot-metal bases to distort. I know this arm problem also occurs with the 201 and 202, but not to the same extent, possibly because of the more substantial arm bases. Probably talking out of my backside, but whilst we're in lockdown, we gotta do something!

Barry