Re-motored "Die Stimme seines Herrn" Cabinet

[nostalgia]

Yes, there are two crank holes. I immediately thought the hole with the brass plate was the original hole. The machine is in my garage room, and I will tomorrow do some detective work yes, to have a closer look at both holes.
I have been looking in the HMG book closely, and models closely associated with this machine like the Junior Grand does not have a lift knob as seen in the book, but this model of course anyway can have it. Still, I find the positioning of it unusual, since it normally is found close to the person opening the lid...Maybe someone also put a self made lifting knob there, which later has fallen off..who knows really.

I have studied the HMG book, and the triple spring spiral drive motor seem to have been in two versions, with a 1 ¼ inch springs and 1 inch springs, but if these motors look different I don't know. After reading more in the book this was a motor that was used on expensive models, like the New Melba and Chippendale. So now I have to find a New Melba as a donor machine...

Again according to the HMG book, the Junior Grand, that is very close to this model in appearance came with two different motors. Double spiral spring for the Oak version, and triple spring for the Mahogany version. It then makes sense that this model in mahogany originally had a triple spring motor, and if it had, the motors still must have had some differences, since the winding handle of the double spring motor now used, did not fit the original hole. There is a photo of the triple spring spiral motor in the HMG book, and if I compare with photos I myself can take of the double spring motor in my machine, it should be possible to measure if there are differences that causes the motors to need two different holes for the winding handle.
I don't know if I am allowed to upload a photo of the triple spring motor found in the HMG book, I will not do unless someone with authority tell me I am allowed to do it. If it was uploaded, it would be easier to compare it with photos of the double spring spiral drive motor in my machine.

[Steve]

This machine definitely unquestionably had the triple spring motor in it identical to the UK model, Junior Grand, which it is a minor variation of.

[nostalgia]

Thank you Jerry and Steve for your inputs.
After sleeping on it, the best thing to do with this machine is probably to clean it, refinish it, wax it, and leave it as it is for now. The chance of finding the correct motor is probably smaller than finding the famous needle in the haystack, and that is also why it never received a new three spring motor of the same kind after a repair, whatever caused the original motor to be removed and not repaired in itself. In the unlikely event a three spring spiral drive motor ever turns up in an overly scrappy mahogany Junior Grand etc, well then I will for sure remember where it will fit.
It could however be interesting to try to reason out the differences between the double and the three spring motor that caused the double spring not to fit perfectly into the gramopohone, but that is actually something I can try to do offline since I have photos of both motors, and later on tell more about in detail here on the forum.

[Oedipus]

Firstly, a simple one to answer: The motor you have is the double spring version of the 1 ¼-inch spring motor shown in HMG (figs 9.47 and 9.48). As the layout is exactly the same, there did not seem any point in showing the double-spring version as well! The winder hole would be in the same position for any of these three motors (though, of course, there might be slight variations in different years of production).
The 1-inch spring motors (e.g. 9.46 and 9.49 in the book) are recognisable by their sloping governor. (Victor made a 1 ¼ inch spring version of this motor, but not HMV).

Secondly, it does not follow that this mahogany GAM would have a triple spring motor just because the mahogany Junior Grand did. They are different models, and this is a cheaper version, so would be just as likely to have a double-spring motor like the oak Junior Grand. Whether the GAM originally had two springs or three could be determined by reference to an original catalogue -- I am sorry that I do not have one to hand as this model was not included in the British catalogues, but I had clearly seen it in Dutch catalogues during my research at the EMI archive.

The fact that the upper winder hole has no witness marks for an escutcheon suggests that it is not original. The odd thing about the motor is that it is mounted on a circular steel plate, just like the one you find in the Model IX table grand, where it saves space by raising the position of the motor so that it just clears the cast iron horn. The type of horn fitted in the cabinet models has plenty of clearance for a motor mounted on a wood board -- but it looks as if you gramophone does not have the normal kind of horn for one of these early cabinet models -- it consists of a large cast iron throat and a crude wooden 'bell'. That makes me wonder if someone in the past has tried to improve the machine by redesigning the horn, and in so doing left too little space for the motor, which was ingeniously overcome by raising the latter with the use of a steel plate from a Model IX?
That would involve raising the winder hole.

Having said that, I have never seen inside a GAM, so I cannot be sure that it did not always have a motor on a steel plate (the plate and its wood frame do look very original). But have a close look at that horn -- it doesn't look to me like a Gramophone Co. product!

[Oedipus]

Further to my last post, I have found a German catalogue of 1913/14 which shows the GAM as 'Gramola No. 111', with a three-spring motor. GAO in the same catalogue had two springs. I looked up the GAO that was sold in the Roger Thorne sale in 2011, and that had a 'small' two-spring motor (i.e. with 1 inch springs).That opens up the possibility that the GAM might have had the three-spring version of the same 1-inch spring motor, in which case the winder hole would have been in a different position.

[nostalgia]

Thank you Oedipus, for your inputs. I doubt anyone else really could help out on this matter, since the model itself is not common.
To summarize, afte reading your posts a few times.
My machine could be a Gramola No. 111, also named GAM, and originally might have had a 1-inch three spring motor, while the motor that is now in the gramophone is a 1 ¼ inch double spring motor. These are two different type of motors, with different positioned winder holes. It can make good sense, in particular when you say that the winder hole position is equal for all three versions of the 1 ¼ .inch spring motors ( single, double, triple spring).

I look at photo 9.46 and 9.49 in the HMG book, showing the two different 1-inch spring motors you mention, and they have two different layouts. I will try to compare these two photos in the HMG book with photos of the motor in my gramophone, and from it..try to detect if differences between these motors will reflect in the different positioning of the winder hole, and maybe even confirm that the original winder hole with eschutceon, would have fitted one of these two 1 inch spring motors!

I will also take some more photos of the horn when I today or tomorrow go to my repair room in the neigbour city, and upload here.

[alang]

It might make sense to ask about information on the German forum https://grammophon-platten.de

Andreas

[nostalgia]

Yes, thank you, Andreas. I already made a search on the German forum, and could not find the machine listed, but of course, someone may still recognize it or even own it. I will upload the photos to the German forum, since it anyway would be nice to show the gramophone to the members on that forum too.

[Oedipus]

I added another contribution to this yesterday, but bizarrely, it has not appeared. I must have forgotten to press a button. Now, can I remember what I said?

One thing I pointed out was that of the two 1-inch spring motors I referred to in HMG (9.46 and 9.49), the one shown in 9.49 is from the post-WW1 era, so would not have been used in the GAM or GAO (I mentioned it merely to show that the 1-inch motors have that distinctive sloping governor). I then realised that I have never seen a 3-spring version of the motor shown in 9.46. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but certainly in the pre-WW1 era, a triple-spring motor is usually the 1 ¼ inch type, with a horizontal governor, exactly like your 2- spring version apart from the extra spring (and two of the springs are in a double-sized barrel).

Thinking again about your GAM, I think what may have happened is that the motor now in it, complete with its steel plate and wood frame, came out of a different machine. The steel plate makes the motor higher than if it were on a conventional wood motor board, and the wood frame is probably in a slightly different position relative to the case than in its original gramophone, which is why the winder hole is not quite in vertical alignment with the original hole in the GAM case.

I also had another look at the German catalogue and noticed a subtle difference in the way the motors in the GAO and GAM are described: GAO has a 'Kraeftiges Zweifederwerk' but the GAM has a 'Starkes Dreifederwerk'.
The general description of the GAO says its Federwerk is 'nicht ganz so stark wie bei dem vorher abgebildeten Apparat.' Obviously, a 2-spring motor could be said to be less powerful than a 3-spring one, but is there a hint here that the springs themselves in the GAO are less powerful than in the GAM? My German is not string -- perhaps there is a nuance in meaning between Kraeftig and Stark?

[Inigo]

Could this mean that the GAM has a three 1.25" spring motor and the GAO has a two 1" spring motor?