Edison Operas "Extraordinare"

[cmshapiro]

There’s no accounting for taste. It was his stuff, and he could do whatever he wanted with it. Just like Janice, after migrating from Texas to make it big in the Golden State, did with her Porsche.


A few years back I visited a collector who had a nickel-plated Gem. George (or any of the rest of you), was that a factory option, or another owner “custom job”? It was cool, but also another head-scratcher.

I see this often "its is/hers, they can do what they want with it". That's fine in cases with a common machine. These days Operas are a common machine, there is always one for sale. But if it is a rare and historically important machine, we as collectors have a responsibility to preserve these machines for future generations. If you think restoring a treadle Bell & Tainter (yes there are people who have! - money does not buy taste or sophistication) or an Edison tinfoil, or even a Class M is necessary because it no longer looks new, you are the wrong home for it and will destroy the machine's historical integrity forever. Such actions can not be undone. Your interest in something being flashy becomes a detriment to the future of the study of this subject/object(s). Sell the machine to a collector who has an understanding of historical artifacts before you butcher its historic integrity. The museum/academic world often has a bad view of collectors, and actions like stated prior are part of the reason why. Museums have their own share of issues with access, knowledge, etc. We can all do better. For common machines, there are plenty in original condition for future generations to study, do as you wish. For historic pieces, don't be a hack!

As for a nickel plated gem, I am not aware that this was an option, certainly not a nickel plated metal "cabinet". But it's just a Gem, go ahead and do whatever you wish. Sometime a flashy party trick is fun.

Yeah, but I'm going to respectfully disagree here. Go to museums and you won't see any peeling plating, missing paint, rust, "patina" or alligatored/ disintegrating finishes.

Are you preserving "originality", or are you merely preserving the neglect and ravages of time the piece has endured? To me, the key is YES, go ahead and restore it, but only after very careful research into what finishes, etc. were used at the time and how they were applied. Do it... but do it right.

We go through the same silly arguments in the classic car communities... "BUT IT'S ALL ORIGINAL PAINT!!!" Really? The original paint on this Mercedes was dull with primer showing through all over? Somehow, I don't think so.

What people don't realize about finishes is that the eye pleasing part of them is a secondary function, with the primary function being the preservation of what's under the finish. Do you wish to preserve history, or just allow it to continue crumbling to dust?

The thing is, 90% of phonographs that turn up are not crumbling to dust and have perfectly good original finishes. Removing dirt is important as often dirt and dust retains moisture.

Preserving history (stabilizing artifacts) is done through conservation techniques (technical and scientific), and removing original finishes is the removal of history. Conservation usually costs far more than restoration, but for truly historical artifacts, that money is spent out of responsibility. If you had a rare historical document and the ink had faded, would you re-write over a historic figure's original handwriting? I would hope not.

It's not a big issue; the collectors who have really historically important and rare machines generally don't remove original finishes. That is a good thing.

Scratches, paint chips, etc. are normal signs of something having a life. That life is part of the history of an object and on an important machine; having that intact is necessary for future generations to properly interpret history.

Many generations ago, the Smithsonian restored some things, repainted, replated, etc. That ended in the 1970's, and good thing that it did. Much of what you see on display at the Smithsonian has not been restored but rather conserved by professional conservators. Please see the attached picture of a well-preserved phonograph at the Smithsonian. All original paint, patinated surfaces, etc. The surfaces have been cleaned of dirt and contaminants and stabilized as necessary. Imagine if this machine had been stripped, repainted, and polished because it no longer looked new. It would be a crime!

Those who know me know that I am the last guy to say "that belongs in a museum", as so many museums actually do mess things up, do not make artifacts accessible, and often have no staff that knows anything about the objects that we study. That said, sometimes it is necessary that very important pieces go somewhere other than to be damaged by an amateur, for safekeeping for future generations and research.

[gramophone-georg]

I see this often "its is/hers, they can do what they want with it". That's fine in cases with a common machine. These days Operas are a common machine, there is always one for sale. But if it is a rare and historically important machine, we as collectors have a responsibility to preserve these machines for future generations. If you think restoring a treadle Bell & Tainter (yes there are people who have! - money does not buy taste or sophistication) or an Edison tinfoil, or even a Class M is necessary because it no longer looks new, you are the wrong home for it and will destroy the machine's historical integrity forever. Such actions can not be undone. Your interest in something being flashy becomes a detriment to the future of the study of this subject/object(s). Sell the machine to a collector who has an understanding of historical artifacts before you butcher its historic integrity. The museum/academic world often has a bad view of collectors, and actions like stated prior are part of the reason why. Museums have their own share of issues with access, knowledge, etc. We can all do better. For common machines, there are plenty in original condition for future generations to study, do as you wish. For historic pieces, don't be a hack!

As for a nickel plated gem, I am not aware that this was an option, certainly not a nickel plated metal "cabinet". But it's just a Gem, go ahead and do whatever you wish. Sometime a flashy party trick is fun.

Yeah, but I'm going to respectfully disagree here. Go to museums and you won't see any peeling plating, missing paint, rust, "patina" or alligatored/ disintegrating finishes.

Are you preserving "originality", or are you merely preserving the neglect and ravages of time the piece has endured? To me, the key is YES, go ahead and restore it, but only after very careful research into what finishes, etc. were used at the time and how they were applied. Do it... but do it right.

We go through the same silly arguments in the classic car communities... "BUT IT'S ALL ORIGINAL PAINT!!!" Really? The original paint on this Mercedes was dull with primer showing through all over? Somehow, I don't think so.

What people don't realize about finishes is that the eye pleasing part of them is a secondary function, with the primary function being the preservation of what's under the finish. Do you wish to preserve history, or just allow it to continue crumbling to dust?

The thing is, 90% of phonographs that turn up are not crumbling to dust and have perfectly good original finishes. Removing dirt is important as often dirt and dust retains moisture.

Preserving history (stabilizing artifacts) is done through conservation techniques (technical and scientific), and removing original finishes is the removal of history. Conservation usually costs far more than restoration, but for truly historical artifacts, that money is spent out of responsibility. If you had a rare historical document and the ink had faded, would you re-write over a historic figure's original handwriting? I would hope not.

It's not a big issue; the collectors who have really historically important and rare machines generally don't remove original finishes. That is a good thing.

Scratches, paint chips, etc. are normal signs of something having a life. That life is part of the history of an object and on an important machine; having that intact is necessary for future generations to properly interpret history.

Many generations ago, the Smithsonian restored some things, repainted, replated, etc. That ended in the 1970's, and good thing that it did. Much of what you see on display at the Smithsonian has not been restored but rather conserved by professional conservators. Please see the attached picture of a well-preserved phonograph at the Smithsonian. All original paint, patinated surfaces, etc. The surfaces have been cleaned of dirt and contaminants and stabilized as necessary. Imagine if this machine had been stripped, repainted, and polished because it no longer looked new. It would be a crime!
Those who know me know that I am the last guy to say "that belongs in a museum", as so many museums actually do mess things up, do not make artifacts accessible, and often have no staff that knows anything about the objects that we study. That said, sometimes it is necessary that very important pieces go somewhere other than to be damaged by an amateur, for safekeeping for future generations and research.

I wouldn't be a crime of any sort had it been done exactly as original in my opinion. Sorry. But even then it would depend on the level of deterioration. If the level of deterioration were relatively minor to somewhat moderate... then sure, conserving it is the way to go.

On the machine you're referencing, you mention that the finish was "stabilized as necessary". It makes me wonder what this means. Stabilized how, and with what? I'm perfectly willing to bet that the stabilization process was done with modern techniques and substances. So what's the diff?

"Sorry, Mom, but we've decided that even though dialysis twice a week is a bit inconvenient, we're NOT allowing a transplant. Those kidneys are one owner originals, and doing this will erase a part of your historical record."

Yes, I'm being a little silly. Good discussion though!

Now back to the Opera Extraordinaires... one of the things I think we should be thinking about was set off in my mind by a comment made by KCW a bit upstream... that in the latest edition of Frow there is a gold- plated Opera. What's the story on this? It begs the question... what happens when Raphael is gone and these machines get marketed by some unscrupulous weasel dealer as "rare factory variants" or "rare special orders"?

This reminded me that I need to put notes somewhere in my 10-50 and HMV 32. But even then, this evidence is easily removed. Maybe I need to invest in a woodburning iron.

[cmshapiro]

On the machine you're referencing, you mention that the finish was "stabilized as necessary". It makes me wonder what this means. Stabilized how, and with what? I'm perfectly willing to bet that the stabilization process was done with modern techniques and substances. So what's the diff?

"

I did not mean to infer that I knew what work was done to the Smithsonian's Bergmann machine, but I can assure you that measures have been taken. I would not suspect much more than having a careful cleaning and a protective layer of microcrystalline wax (many major museums use Preactor Rennaisance wax - highly recommended - relatively inexpensive, and it works really well) to prevent further oxidation to the bare metal parts. That said, a master conservator can make reversible repairs to objects that are often invisible to the casual viewer. That kind of work is always done with respect to maintaining the historical integrity of the object, and with that, the work done is always reversible so that future generations can remove repairs if necessary without further damage to the object. This is all assuming that the conservator adheres to the AIC (if in the USA) code of ethics.

Stabilization in conservation refers to the process of making sure that the artifact is in sound condition to remain preserved for the future. It could be the process of securing flaking paint (often called "consolidation") with a reversible and UV stable adhesive or resin, sewing in supports to textiles so that they can be displayed and handled without damage, mending tears in paper with wheatpaste and Japanese paper, etc.

[epigramophone]

Now back to the Opera Extraordinaires... one of the things I think we should be thinking about was set off in my mind by a comment made by KCW a bit upstream... that in the latest edition of Frow there is a gold- plated Opera. What's the story on this? It begs the question... what happens when Raphael is gone and these machines get marketed by some unscrupulous weasel dealer as "rare factory variants" or "rare special orders"?

I can find no reference to a gold plated Opera in my 1994 revised edition of Frow.

[Steve]

These Edisons remind me of these HMV's:

viewtopic.php?p=352700#p352700

The "piano finish" is surely authentic though? I've seen only one genuinely mint Music Master horn which had been kept in a baize bag all its life and when removed looked almost identical to the piano finish Opera horn in this thread.

[PeterF]

I see that one of my earlier remarks, about an owner doing whatever they please with the stuff they own, has sparked a conversation.

The debate can be (somewhat over-) simplified by asking that timeless question:

Do you polish your brass horns, or leave the patina?

Over-restoration, where an item is made fancier/shinier than new, is pretty much always not ok. A good example of this is when ignorant people remove the original, muted, rose gold gilded trim on the Victrola XX and replace it with shiny bright yellow gold.

Resto-mod, where a vintage item is altered as it is made to look/act as new, is a big thing in car world now. Drop a modern corvette engine in your 57 chevy and add the new corvette’s seats and instruments while you’re at it: wow, we sure showed em how to make this old thing better, huh!

Operas are indeed relatively rare and special, and probably 75% of old-school collectors would be eager to someday own even one. The anti-mutilation argument definitely applies. And if you break it down just a tiny bit further, you can divide what was done to the ones shown in this thread into a pair of philosophies:

1. Making something that could have been

Plating the bedplates and other mechanical parts could be - although it’s a stretch - thematically united with factory-plated machines like Triumphs and Idelias. But if you must do that, it’s perhaps best to use the factory examples as guidelines for what parts to plate and not plate.

(And maybe the plating idea on this pair originated from the original bedplates’ coatings being in poor condition, which might help explain how this happened)

2. Taking it further than that

But then the owner opted to plate the cygnets’ necks. It goes from “this machine is a simulation of something the factory might have done” to “oh good lord, look at the horn, how tacky!” And that’s where the privilege of ownership comes in, and the observers may have to strain to stay quietly polite.

It’s great that this pair have found an appreciative owner now, who we can be sure will permanently affix explanatory notes to each of them - certainly no future buyer would ever be misled into paying a premium price for these based on their misrepresentation as original/factory custom jobs, right?

Right?

[KCW]

I checked my digital copy and did find a picture of the good plated Opera. Here it is attached. I think it looks awesome! Anyone know anything about this particular machine? I guess you could get it plated then?

[JerryVan]

I checked my digital copy and did find a picture of the good plated Opera. Here it is attached. I think it looks awesome! Anyone know anything about this particular machine? I guess you could get it plated then?

IMG_7755.jpeg

I think we can safely say it's the same one now owned by Raphael.

[phonogfp]

I checked my digital copy and did find a picture of the good plated Opera. Here it is attached. I think it looks awesome! Anyone know anything about this particular machine? I guess you could get it plated then?

This clearly illustrates the risk incurred by making machines something they never were.

For anyone who takes the trouble to read The Edison Phonograph Monthly, they will learn the Opera (in mahogany) was introduced in October 1911. In February 1912 the oak version was announced. A few additional mentions/testimonials appear in 1912, but NOWHERE is it mentioned that gold or nickel plating was available for the Opera/Concert. The Opera/Concert was discontinued the following year, as the external-horn cylinder machine market was rapidly being supplanted by the less-expensive Amberola line (III, IV, V, VI, VIII, X). I've never seen period documentation suggesting that nickel or gold plating was available for the Opera/Concert, but I'd be indebted to anyone who can show such documentation.

Likewise, I never imagined a nickel or gold-plated Opera/Concert until Domenic showed his gold example at the Union show years ago. At the time I didn't hear any experienced collectors questioning if such a machine could be original. It was clearly a fantasy piece. Visually stunning, but not historically accurate.

Yet now, an online image of a gold-plated Opera (almost certainly Domenic's) surfaces (years after George Frow's death) labeled as having "optional" gold plating. Unless one's definition of "optional" is very broad, this description is spurious. But it seems that, despite all historical evidence and collecting experience to the contrary, some will believe this Opera was factory gold-plated. I've said enough. You can't save every puppy in the pound...

George P.

[Raphael]

OK, the phonograph Pope has spoken and I respect that. But for the record, nowhere have I ever intimated that either of these Operas were factory originals. Dom did them up, and just like women with big chests, some men like ‘em and some don’t. I put this post up for people to enjoy, not to bicker over the technicalities of their origin. For those that don’t, one might suggest they track down all the missing Operas and agonize over what sins they committed by disposing of their historic treasures. Dom, RIP, you at least made some people smile, especially me.

Raphael