Strange extra holes on original Victor II

[tomwil]

Strange that the attachments are now gone.

[JerryVan]

Perhaps our honesty has now given the item a "taint" that the owner does not want published. Perhaps.

[brianu]

if that's the case, it's ridiculously lame, and another example of why not to bother offering such detailed responses to inquiries limited to, what's this worth (or more so, what's this worth because I want to sell it), coming from people who have no posting history and only seem to have joined for that singular purpose.

[brianu]

exactly. lame.

[HisMastersVoice]

Diamonds aren't the only things that are forever, you know.

attachment1.jpg (114.58 KiB) Viewed 1699 times

attachment2.jpg (122.06 KiB) Viewed 1699 times

attachment3.jpg (101.77 KiB) Viewed 1699 times

[gramophoneshane]

Yes, you can come up with a couple semi-logical reasons/excuses for the hole in the side & maybe even the motor board, but there's no feasible excuse for the hole in the base to have been present at the time it left the factory.
It's unfortunate, but it does appear to be a Frankenphone that I doubt could be put right to an acceptible standard for the average collector. I suppose at best, it would make a good parts machine for someone who could use the backbracket & horn to complete a machine, along with the motor.
Sadly, the case would need a replacement motor board, side & base to make it useful once again.

[tomwil]

It appears this Victor II was auctioned on eBay that ended Jan 17th. The buyer might have had questions about it afterwards. This auction has the other missing attachments.

[AZ*]

It appears this Victor II was auctioned on eBay that ended Jan 17th. The buyer must have had questions about it afterwards. This auction has the other missing attachments.

Good detective work. It's interesting that the holes on the side of the case and motorboard are not clearly shown or mentioned in the ebay listing, although the hole in the bottom is shown. Obviously the ebay seller did not want to highlight the known flaws.

[vlad0002]

Thank you very much, guys, all very helpful.

I listed the machine in good faith, not knowing the extra hole on the side was an issue (did not even noticed the ones under the turntable). This and bottom holes can be seen in the auction pictures. The person who bought it raised those questions after he received the machine the red arrow pics are his. Hence the original inquary. Since then I gave the guy an option to return the machine or accept a partial "satisfaction" refund. He went for the latter.

Not sure what happened to the original attachments -- I was trying to reorder the pics couple of days ago and add one with the bottom hole. Something went astray. They all there now, I verified.

Thanks again for your help.

[Jerry B.]

I'm getting involved in this thread rather late but here's my two cents worth...

When speaking of the Victor E or Victor II, they are really two different models. The transition from front mount to rear mount happened during the Vic E production. You'll never an original front mount Victor with an ID tag indicating "Vic II". I think part of the confusion results from Victor advertising. When the E, M, and MS were offered in rear mount configuration, Victor advertising called the rear mount Victor E the "Victor the Second". The M was called "Victor the Third", MS was called "Victor the Fourth" and the D, which was always a rear mount, was called "Victor the Fifth". Some advertising executive probably thought "Victor the Second" sounded more regal than Vic E. I'm sure he was correct and sales jumped with the rear mount machines. A little bit later in time, motors were improved and ID tags indicated the model in Roman numerals. I've seen some things that make life confusing. I've seen Victor I tags that read "V I" and the owner thought they had a Victor VI. I've seen the late Victor MS, with the oak Victor IV style case, as either a Vic MS or Vic IV. Sometimes you'll see a Victor VI as a "Vic 6". Another bit of confusion is the Vic Z. When the Victor R was discontinued, Victor needed an inexpensive model so they attached front mount hardware to a Vic I box and motor and called it a Vic Z.

I've seen a bunch of humpback Vic II's but I've never seen one with a Vic E motor in it. If anyone has such a machine, I'd love to see photos on the forum. The two models shared common parts like brakes and back brackets but I've always believed the Vic II cabinet is larger and slightly different and the motors are different. I've always thought it was unfortunate that data about the Victor E's and II's is lumped together. If someone can post photos of a humpback Vic II with a Vic E motor, it would prove that there was a genuinely gradual transition from the E to II and it would make my statement about them being two distinct models untrue. I've been wrong before and I'd love to have someone prove me wrong again. I'm a big boy and can take it!

The photo of the above machine looks like a marriage of parts to me. The back bracket and elbow are from a late plain case Vic II and the crank sticks out too far. It looks like it's from an early VV-IV or VI.

Happy collecting, Jerry Blais