Featured Phonograph № 21

[B.B.B]

So you started collecting in the summer of Love, how very fitting!
Before these machines got hold of me, records from that era took most of my collecting time. But not anymore...

Anyhow, I can't tell you how much I look forward to your next oddity!

[JohnM]

Walt,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post, but I've been busy! Thanks so much for posting the Biggs patents. I love the little cup in the horn to retard the sound waves on the short side . . . what a concept! I wonder how many Castle Grands were produced, or if the record cabinets were produced in stand-alone versions. Frankly, I don't see the great advantage to Bigg's storage system -- all the records in the row tump forward at once!

B.B.B.,
I was quite young when I started collecting. Phonographs rapidly took the place of comic books in my consciousness. The other things I remember the most about that year were my awareness of rock n' roll was rising, my dad suffered a debilitating stroke, and I went to Expo '67 in Montreal.

John M

[JohnM]

Hello all! I added a photo of the interior of the Castle Grand with the back removed to the series of images on page 1 of this thread. The horn is a MONSTER! The little 'cup' at the end of the horn shown in the patent drawing is in reality three recessed scallops in the wood. I'll repost the picture here, too, since that is the topic of this post.

Biggs open.jpg (38.15 KiB) Viewed 3574 times

John M

[estott]

So much effort went into this, so much design, and it's obviously very high quality workmanship, and to me it just seems wrong. I strongly suspect it was designed in reverse: the company started with the record storage unit and decided to fit a record player into it. Somehow they couldn't or wouldn't sacrifice some of the storage space to orient the horn forward.

[MordEth]

John,

Thanks for adding the horn photo—I’ve been meaning to reply to this thread to comment that it was an interesting machine and that I was glad you posted it, but seeing their horn design makes it that much more curious.

I wonder if estott is correct in his conjecture as to their design process—it certainly seems like a great design for record storage, but perhaps not the greatest design for a phonograph.

How noticeable is the surface noise?

— MordEth

[JohnM]

Well, you can certainly hear it. The reproducer has never been rebuilt -- the arm and reproducer are pot metal and while it is not cracked or swollen in the least, it still makes me nervous to take it apart. It also swivels to play hill & dale, but I've never even attempted to swivel it! I'm sure it would simply be louder with fresh gaskets in the reproducer and perhaps that would help increase the signal-to-noise ratio. Walt, if you are reading this, is that something you would tackle?

As far as the holistic design of this machine, it does appear to be designed by a committee (of one, lol). Biggs certainly was attempting to merge his record storage design with his horn design to no great acoustical advantage and the tumping record storage cabinet was overkill compared to simple albums for storage, which by that time were well established as the standard for convenience. Biggs system was more of a throwback to 15-20 years earlier, IMHO!

Last night, Lauri wondered aloud how one was supposed to empty the needle disposal box and noted that one could wiggle it. I pulled up on it and it came right out as it was secured to the cabinet only by a friction-fit wooden dowel. Hidden underneath the needle box is the serial number '1900', ½"-tall stamped into the wood of the cabinet. That sounds like a s/n that would be used as a starting point for numbering and Biggs may have chosen '19**' because the other decal on the machine for the record storage system states "December 1919", although the patents indicate 1920 for filing and 1921 for granting. That made me think about just how many of these behemoths were actually produced . . . I wonder if this is the only one built (as a patentable example) or if it is just coincidence that this one has such a nice round serial number? I did notice when I had the motor board out, that the drip pan under the motor has embossed wording in the sheet metal that indicates it was hand-made from an old oil can, so I believe this entire machine to be very hand-made and not of high production at all. Biggs isn't listed in R.J. Wakeman's list of minor manufacturers (which I understand is based upon mentions in the Talking Machine World and is not exhaustive) on Tim Gracyk's website -- but obviously, Biggs didn't try or wasn't able to market these in any 'bigg' way! Perhaps mine is the only example built? At any rate, there couldn't have been many built and I'm grateful this one has survived!

John M

[estott]

Here's a crazy theory: The phonograph mechanism and the consequent deepening of the cabinet are intended primarily as counterweights to the record storage. Without them there would be a possibility the whole thing might tip over if the records were tilted forward.

[JohnM]

Ahahahaha! You're probably right! I owe you a beer someday for that one!

John M

[B.B.B]

I can't stop admiring it!
What a beast! So powerful, so cleverly designed & still...not very scientific at all.
The horn is huge, but just very wrong, against all common principles of sound-reproducing.

Anyhow, for me, these types of machines are priceless, this one even tops the British machine with a coiled cobra attached to the soundbox that we discussed recently.

Yes, Victor VI's & HMV 202's are beautiful & I admire them a lot, but if I was to build a collection on a Bill Gates type of budget, I'd go after these ones first

[[email protected]]

Hey there,
I think I just bought this machine in OKC, Oklahoma last night in an auction. they said they got it from someone in Texas. Let me know what ever happened to your machine.
John G'