Unknown Phonograph Base Cabinet

[Skihawx]

Once I found out that none of my Victors fit, I assumed it was made for a Columbia horn machine. I can't find my Columbia book. I think I have one. I didn't think they would make a nice cabinet for a lidless Victor or Columbia table model. I thought someone for sure would have a Herzog cabinet catalog. I thought I saw pictures of pages posted here a while ago. However, I could not find them.

[Silvertone]

I thought I saw pictures of pages posted here a while ago. However, I could not find them.

There are quite a few models of Herzog cabinets illustrated in the Sept 2017 issue of The Antique Phonograph, however this exact model is not shown. This was a relatively expensive cabinet, and a Victor VI would look good on it. I show that the earliest model of the Victor VI is 15 ½" square and would seem to fit nicely inside the molding. Otherwise, is the picture-frame molding on the top removable?

[Jerry B.]

Here are photos of a Victor V with a matching cabinet. The color of the machine is not an exact match to the cabinet. You can see how the machine actually sits on top of the border trim on top of the cabinet. Part of the border is visible. Please read the captions with each photo. I think it does a good job of explaining why the machine does not have to sit within the confines on the top trim of the record cabinet.

I've owned this Victor V since about 1975. It came to me brush painted gold and without a horn. I always suspected it was used as an accent piece in a retail setting like a clothing store. In addition to the cabinet everything else was painted gold such as the back bracket, tone arm, and even the Exhibition sound box. Judging from the poor quality of the paint job, I suspected that the painter was really rushed and took about ten minutes to complete the job. If you look at the round speed control you can see gold in the little increment marks. I liked the look and it reminds me of its provenance. I was able to save the black paint on the back bracket using lacquer thinner but lost much of the gold decoration. Over the years I've owned much nicer Victor V's but always kept this one for sentimental reasons. But I do admit to currently owning another Victor V with a 24B horn that is crazy nice. But if I could only have one Victor V, I would probably keep this one...maybe with the 24B horn.

Jerry B.

[drh]

Once I found out that none of my Victors fit, I assumed it was made for a Columbia horn machine. I can't find my Columbia book. I think I have one. I didn't think they would make a nice cabinet for a lidless Victor or Columbia table model. I thought someone for sure would have a Herzog cabinet catalog. I thought I saw pictures of pages posted here a while ago. However, I could not find them.

I'm assuming it would have been intended for a mahogany case machine, not oak. As far as I can see in Baumbach, the mahogany Columbia open horn models that were about the dimensions you cite were all a hair too big--16" square, not 15 ⅞. A fair fraction of them also were in fancy curved cases, not the squared-corner type your mouldings would suggest. All this for what it's worth--about what you paid for it, I imagine!

In all events, it's a beautiful cabinet. Best of luck finding a machine to fit!

[Shawn]

If you want to own one, with the matching Victor VI on top, there is one available at Stanton's November auction!!

Check out the listing. If all occurs as in past years, Steve will be adding more pictures as the auction gets closer. Looks to be a good one!

https://www.stantons-auctions.com/aucti ... 53/landing

Shawn

[Jerry B.]

I think the 16-⅛" would be a very tight fit.

I've attempted to explain in previous posts that the machine for any cabinet does not have to "fit" in the confines of the top trim. It sits on top and helps in the hopefully seamless transition from machine to cabinet. I'd still love to know the inside measurements of the trim.

[Jerry B.]

I was wondering about cabinet size of a Victor VI. Mine measured 16 & ⅛" square. I called collector friends that also have that model and asked for an accurate measurement of cabinet size. The other three measured 15 & ¾", 15 & ½", and 15 & ½". So, if those measurements are accurate, and I believe they are, the difference in cabinet size is ⅝". The difference in size can easily be explained. Even though the outward appearance remained the same, the model went through a change in motors, horns, and was produced for quite a few years. That could explain small differences in size of the cabinets.

If we consider any cabinet that is made for a specific machine, it is not practical to think the machine fits exactly in the confines of the top trim. To accommodate slight differences in size would require the trim to be cut at the dealer's where the machine met the cabinet. That is not practical. But if that trim is just a bit wide and the machine sat over the trim a minor difference is size could be accommodated.

Jerry B.

[VanEpsFan1914]

My curiosity piqued, I had a look through the Baumbach Columbia Phonograph Companion Vol. II, and I saw only one machine offered in mahogany for which close dimensions were given: the Eclipse was 15.5" square. It was a lidless tabletop model that sold for $20 in oak, $25 in optional mahogany. The size would be right, but somehow, however, that seems an awfully modest machine to have spawned such an elaborate cabinet as this.

I'd be tempted to go find an old mahogany Eclipse and just put it on there for grins & giggles--This raises the question; in the early days were the lidless tabletops seen as the latest and greatest, or were they seen as "second" to the big horn machines? We like collecting horn phonographs today, but they weren't seen as so nice later on in the phonograph era--once the initial novelty of the phonograph record wore off, it seems like the big open-horn machines got pushed aside rather rapidly.

It would seem odd to us now, but is this possibly an original Eclipse cabinet?

[JerryVan]

I think the 16-⅛" would be a very tight fit.

I've attempted to explain in previous posts that the machine for any cabinet does not have to "fit" in the confines of the top trim. It sits on top and helps in the hopefully seamless transition from machine to cabinet. I'd still love to know the inside measurements of the trim.

That makes a lot of sense, since the recess created by the raised boarder trim would allow the 4 rubber feet of the phonograph cabinet to fit within the recess space, thereby allowing the edges of the phonograph cabinet to sit on, or very close to, the top of the base cabinet, creating a seamless transition.