The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Edisone wrote:It can be a finish, when it's fake. Cheapo birch or mystery wood cabinets might be "finished in mahogany", for example. Metal phono horns, too....

You were talking about the stain and or finish. I'm just saying the initial question had to do with the wood type and not the finish. However I could be wrong and don't want to take this thread off track...

Thank goodness there is so much variety to chose from. That makes it interesting to me; both when you are looking and in your collection. If a machine is in choice condition, it really doesn't matter if it is oak, walnut or mahogany. It will stand out no matter what the type of wood. If all your machines were only one type of wood, it would (no pun intended) be kinda boring.

How about this one? Oak or mahogany or ... ?

(link to c-list ad removed, as the seller says this photo is not really of his machine)

I like the look of red-mahogany, but the "classic" finish was a glass-smooth "piano finish" that does not age well.

This is not limited to talking machines... look at any 20th Century Federal / Georgian period furniture, or pianos, and you'll see the same alligatoring.

And to re-do a red-mahogany "piano finish" PROPERLY is very labor intensive, and demands that the grain be FILLED. How many of you have seen "refinished" mahogany furniture at antique malls with surfaces like an orange or grapefruit skin ?


I think the oak finishes survive better, because they were finished with different techniques...


In terms of my collecting, I am now looking for pieces that are "different" or nicer examples of machines I already own...

Golden Oak is a favorite of mine, but if I found a machine in decent fumed or Flemish Oak, I would be inclined to chase it.

Our house is trimmed with dark stained Chestnut on the first floor, so the open grain of oak goes nicely with the Chestnut.

I have a Sonora upright that a friend (now deceased)gave me.I'm not sure what model it is,but it has a curved front.It's mahogany,but I wonder how it would look in oak?Pretty.I'm sure.edisonplayer

Way back, mahogany was the "deluxe" wood, brought in via ship at not insignificant expense. Oak was a common American wood and significantly cheaper. The price differential came down when they learned to slice the mahogany into thin veneer so that it went a long way.

When the mahogany was new, many, if not most, phonographs with that wood had a "piano" finish with filled grain and a polished surface. It was absolutely stunning with a real depth to it, as though you were looking through glass down deep into an intricate, subtle, and beautiful grain. But that finish was done with shellac which gradually turns opaque and even black and alligatored over the years. The beautiful grain completely disappears and people who have no idea what it used to be wonder why anybody in the world would want that.

Oak on the other hand, particularly the quarter-sawn oak, has a very strong grain so that it continues to show through even when the shellac has turned dark and remains attractive--often with a kind of chocolate brown color. The extremely strong grain also tends to hide defects because the pattern is so strong that the defects tend to disappear in the intricate pattern. This can make it more attractive now, 100 years later, when oak and mahogany cases are seen side-by-side.

Personally I like both. I have an Edison C150 that had a long-gone mahogany finish when I got it that I had a local cabinet maker restore to the original piano finish. It is stunning and probably the machine that attracts visitors most. But I also have an oak C19 that, after being cleaned, has a finish that has aged into a honey color I also love.

I don't think there is any "right" answer. The issue is which wood appeals to you most.

Clay

Very well said, Clay...

I especially love the random "ray-flake" of quarter-sawn white-oak.

I've noted that phonograph cabinetmakers followed the same trends in then contemporary furniture, which of course makes sense because floor models were furniture. Different periods of furniture often had a dominant wood. So late 19th C Eastlake, a style for the most part prior to the development of the phonograph, predominantly used walnut. And Arts and Craft furniture (such as Stickley and Roycroft) used oak. And the Colonial Revival period (and I mean the later furniture made in the 20th C up into the 30s not necessarily the earlier stuff made around the Centennial) often used mahogany with a dark red stain. Phonograph makers were following contemporary trends for the most part, that is, they used oak and mahogany or even oak stained mahogany (which to me is weird).

But let me add just a little about the use of oak in America. During the so-called Pilgrim Period, yes, oak was used in this country. That followed the English practice at the time. After that period there really was very little use of oak in American furniture until you get to the late 19th C. Then oak emerged as a preferred wood. That's contemporary with the development of the phonograph. by this time nearly all furniture was factory made. And so it's logical that oak was used to make the cabinets.

In the UK, many machines were made in both oak and mahogany. The oak versions were usually cheaper and outsold the mahogany, with the result that oak is more commonly found today.

Walnut, an extra cost option on some American machines, was seldom offered in the UK.

I have a friend who's not really a collector,but he has an oak Victrola XVI.It's a very nice machine.I had a mahogany XVI that I gave to my brother-in-law when I moved a few years ago.edisonplayer