Victor vs Columbia reproducers: rubber back flange (or not)

[AllWoundUp]

I know (from reading these forums!) that it's important with Victor reproducers, to make sure the rubber bit where it mounts to the tone arm is in good shape and not hardened, both for good sound and to reduce record wear.

So my question is: why don't the Columbia Grafonola soundboxes have a similar flange? I know the Viva-Tonal ones do, but the older ones with mica diaphragms don't. Would one expect them not to sound as good as a victor and/or cause more wear to records?

[estott]

In my opinion, Columbia disc machines do cause more wear to records. They don't use ball bearings in the tone arms and the groove has more work to do.

[Norfolkguy]

I was surprised by how good they do sound, so much so that I have made my Columbia my primary machine.
As for record wear, I haven't noticed it on mine. Also, the rubber doesn't harden in the same way as the Victor gasket does.

[ImperialGuardsman]

Could it be something to do with patents held by Victor?

[phonojim]

It could be due to patents but I think it was more due to the overall design of the Grafanola soundbox. Columbia used a larger diaphragm, but more importantly, they used a piont-pivot needlebar suspension which allowed the stylus far more lateral compliance than Victor's spring suspension did. At the same time it coupled much less movement to the reproducer body which may, in fact, have created much less need for a rubber isolator. I have heard electrically recorded records, even some recorded in the 1940s, played on Columbias. They sounded very good except for a lack of bass, much of which was probably due to the inadequate horns used in cabinet machines before the Orthophonic era. The No.4 was the only mica diaphragmed soundbox Victor ever made that could equal or beat it.
The thing I have never understood about Columbia is the fact that they put spring suspension into the New Columbia soundboxes ca. 1922 when they already had a better design.

Jim