


so sad
Dwight
De Soto Frank wrote:I have a Pathéphone VII upright.
It's not a very impressive machine, and the motor is a puny Heinemann.
Also, the cabinets were decorated with glued-on carvings ( depending on the model ), which tend to fall-off if the machine has been kept in the damp.
DON'T spend a lot of money on one.
As far as my experience goes, an external horn Pathé` or an Actuelle (big paper cone reproducer) are the only ones worth spending much money on...
For the same $, you'd be better-off investing in a Columbia, Victor, or Brunswick...
Just my 2-cents-worth.
well it's like anything else old they become junk before they become valuable again. I understand my a150 people would cut the legs to make it a table top machineDe Soto Frank wrote:I feel a little guilty being so hard on the Pathéphone, but I've invested a fair amount of time and effort in trying to get mine to play decently, but without much success... and to be honest, the model VII that I have pales in comparison to machines by Columbia, Edison, Brunswick, or Victor.
You'll see all sorts of injustices visited upon old phonographs...
Eventually you'll see "high-boy" cabinets ( Jacobean ) that have had their legs amputated, and other "improvements"...![]()
De Soto Frank wrote:I have a Pathéphone VII upright.
It's not a very impressive machine, and the motor is a puny Heinemann.
Also, the cabinets were decorated with glued-on carvings ( depending on the model ), which tend to fall-off if the machine has been kept in the damp.
DON'T spend a lot of money on one.
As far as my experience goes, an external horn Pathé` or an Actuelle (big paper cone reproducer) are the only ones worth spending much money on...
For the same $, you'd be better-off investing in a Columbia, Victor, or Brunswick...
Just my 2-cents-worth.
Many of the "off brand", or as I call them "independent" machines used Heinemann motors. They had ads in TMW for years and apparently a lot of the smaller manufacturers bought their hardware. As for quality, I would call them average. The most noticeable observation I've made is it seems like they run a little noisier than Victors or Columbias of similar vintage even after restoration. I wouldn't necessarily call them puny, though. At least not much different than any other two-spring motor.Victrolacollector wrote:De Soto Frank wrote:I have a Pathéphone VII upright.
It's not a very impressive machine, and the motor is a puny Heinemann.
Also, the cabinets were decorated with glued-on carvings ( depending on the model ), which tend to fall-off if the machine has been kept in the damp.
DON'T spend a lot of money on one.
As far as my experience goes, an external horn Pathé` or an Actuelle (big paper cone reproducer) are the only ones worth spending much money on...
For the same $, you'd be better-off investing in a Columbia, Victor, or Brunswick...
Just my 2-cents-worth.
I agree, the Pathé' machines seem to be cheaply made. I am not sure if the Heinemann was really a "puny" motor? But I would like to hear some opinions on Heinemann motors, as it seems they show up in the majority of "off-brand" machines.
zenith82 wrote:Many of the "off brand", or as I call them "independent" machines used Heinemann motors. They had ads in TMW for years and apparently a lot of the smaller manufacturers bought their hardware. As for quality, I would call them average. The most noticeable observation I've made is it seems like they run a little noisier than Victors or Columbias of similar vintage even after restoration. I wouldn't necessarily call them puny, though. At least not much different than any other two-spring motor.Victrolacollector wrote:De Soto Frank wrote:I have a Pathéphone VII upright.
It's not a very impressive machine, and the motor is a puny Heinemann.
Also, the cabinets were decorated with glued-on carvings ( depending on the model ), which tend to fall-off if the machine has been kept in the damp.
DON'T spend a lot of money on one.
As far as my experience goes, an external horn Pathé` or an Actuelle (big paper cone reproducer) are the only ones worth spending much money on...
For the same $, you'd be better-off investing in a Columbia, Victor, or Brunswick...
Just my 2-cents-worth.
I agree, the Pathé' machines seem to be cheaply made. I am not sure if the Heinemann was really a "puny" motor? But I would like to hear some opinions on Heinemann motors, as it seems they show up in the majority of "off-brand" machines.
The Victor is one of the best two-spring motors out there in my opinion. I haven't been able to tell much difference in my two-spring Columbia versus two-spring Heinemann motors, both of which I would call average quality in terms of performance, though I would agree that most of Columbia's parts appear to be engineered and cast better than Heinemann's. The one good thing about the Heinemann motors is they are very plentiful since they were sold separate from any phonograph and many independents used them. You can often pick up extras cheap for parts.De Soto Frank wrote: Then perhaps the Victrola two-spring motor is the equivalent of a steroid-pumped weight-lifter ?
When I go my first Columbia upright this fall, I was surprised by how small the spring barrels are on the 2-spring motor. I still think it is a better-built motor than the 2-spring Heinemann in my Pathéphone VII.