Victor VI ??? I don't Think So

[gramophone-georg]

Yes, these very late Vs did have everything this one has. They are quite rare. I'd love to have one, but the house to keep it in should come with it at that price!

[JerryVan]

He claims it's a V, not a VI. Maybe that's a revision. It's an interesting example of a very late outside horn Victor. But yes, the price is nuts... and it's missing a governor weight, apparently omitted by the expert motor rebuilder.

I can see 3 weights.

Yup. He messaged me that he found it and re-attached it.

[JerryVan]

... And what about the reproducer, should it not be an Exhibition Reproducer ?

Yes, it's definitely one of the rare late production mahogany V-V models, as mention here -- http://www.victor-victrola.com/Victor%20V.htm

According to the "Victor Data Book" by Robert Baumbach, the late V-V models were equipped with the #2 sound box. Also, according to an illustration provided, the brake stop post attached to the tonearm is also correct.

As for the finish, it looks to have been redone at some point. There was a post on this forum a few years ago that discussed the restoration of a mahogany V-V -- viewtopic.php?t=46183 -- but as usual, all of the attached images are gone. This one -- viewtopic.php?t=51840 -- however, does show the finish in its original (as found) state, though it looks like an earlier model (?!?)

I can't tell if it was coated with a polly varnish or shellac. It seems to me, though, that a careful refinishing job might make it look more original, providing the original stain and grain filler is still in place. I'd image it matched the "piano gloss" mahogany finish of the standard tabletop and upright Victrolas of the period.

(Steve, I agree that the $6,000 asking price is a "tad optimistic.")

No. JerryVan did not write what's shown in the above quote.

[OrthoFan]

... And what about the reproducer, should it not be an Exhibition Reproducer ?

...... ,,,,,.......

No. JerryVan did not write what's shown in the above quote.

Cut/Paste error on my part. Thanks for spotting that. I edited it to show the proper attribution.
OF