The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Starkton wrote:

gramophone78 wrote: The $105 price on the early Vic.6 was when sold with the #10 reproducer.

The Victor catalogue of 1904 (last mentioned date is May 1904), see below, doesn't support this. Do you have an early catalogue listing the machine with a $105 price tag?

Starkton, I think the key issue regarding your catalog page you show is with the heading....." The Improved Victor VI".

Since the Victor 6 did not evolve from a earlier front mount model, there was nothing to "improve" when first introduced. Also, the first released Victor 6's were not designated with a roman numeral VI, but with a Arabic 6.

Therefore, your catalog may be later than you think.

According to Robert Baumbach (Look For the Dog) 2005 edition page 65.....I quote:

"List price at introduction......$100 ($105 with No.10 sound box)".

According to him and other long time collectors....when the Victor 6 was first introduced, those ordered with the #10 had the $105 price on the paper underneath.

I do not personally own a catalog or other period ephemera that shows what Robert has written.

In a early (undated) Victor catalog I do own.....it shows the same information you post. It also shows the #10 at $10 and either the regular gold Concert or Exhibition at $5 when sold separately. You will also note the presents of a wood horn and "newly designed spiral drive" motor (see pics below).

So, the #10 was $5 more than the other two reproducers.

However, if this information is not correct......maybe you can explain why the $105 is clearly printed on my label..??. Is there a chance that Robert (and others) are mistaken..??. I have no idea.

I can also add, of the four "early" Victor 6's I have owned.....this is the only one I have had with the $105 price stated. The other three stated $100.

Again, I must stress, the tone arm sits correct and horizontal with the #10 in place on this machine.

In my opinion, this is what makes this particular machine I own so unique, along with the addition of the "second hand licence" added to it's history... .

I don't think much of further speculations without identifiable sources. To prove or disprove a selling price of $105 in 1904/05, I am sure our members can present an ad or further catalogue entries.

On the other hand, perhaps a source could be found verifying the additional charge of $5 for the later upgrade with a wooden horn, which would also explain the $105 price tag on your Victor Sixth.

Starkton wrote:I don't think much of further speculations without identifiable sources. To prove or disprove a selling price of $105 in 1904/05, I am sure our members can present an ad or further catalogue entries.

On the other hand, perhaps a source could be found verifying the additional charge of $5 for the later upgrade with a wooden horn, which would also explain the $105 price tag on your Victor Sixth.

I think we need to look at the last few months of 1904 and not 1904-05.

I'm not sure I understand your assumption regarding a "upgrade" with a wood horn for $5.

The wood horn did not become available until after 1906 and at a price of $15 when sold separately.

Also, the original license paper is dated Mar. 1902 with the $105 price "printed" and the second hand license paper is dated Sept. 1909 at $100 "hand written".

Therefore, the wood horn could only have been an upgrade after 1906 and not 1904 as it was simply not available.

Also note, by the end of 1904, the black paper mache horn was replaced by a 16.5" diameter brass bell horn with a painted wood grained body.

I'm under the impression this $105 set up with #10 and paper mache horn was only for a matter of months during early 1904.

I have now raised this question with Robert.

Maybe George has some further information....??. Although, I don't know if this area is his specialty... .

My understanding has been that the $105.00 selling price for the Victor VI reflected horn equipment rather than sound box. This conclusion has been based on the fact that the $105 price is seen only on early examples, and that the earliest Victor VI machines were equipped with fiber horns imported from Japan. These horns were advertised for sale by Peter Bacigalupi in several issues of The Talking Machine World in 1905, and they were expensive at $10.00.

To back up this theory, here are catalog and advertising illustrations:

This 1905 catalog shows the Victor VI equipped with a No.10 sound box, and the No.10 is clearly named in the specifications. Yet the price is $100.00 with the No. 10 sound box. Note that the horn is the second available model for the VI, with "special mahogany finished body," but this likewise did not warrant a higher price. Here's an advertisement from Collier's magazine, March 1906. It shows the Victor VI with the short-lived flower horn that was briefly supplied with it as standard equipment. I have advertisements from March-June 1906 showing this horn AND illustrating the No.10 sound box as well. Still $100.00. I show this ad because it's the earliest I have found for this particular horn, but it doesn't show the No.10 sound box too well. If anyone wishes, I can post an April or May 1906 version which is larger and clearly shows the large diaphragm "button" distinctive to the No.10. This catalog dates somewhere between May 1906 and December 1907, and shows a typical Victor VI equipped with Exhibition and wooden horn. Still $100.00. I was confident that I had an ad for the earliest Victor VI equipped with the fiber horn and the $105.00 price, but I cannot seem to locate it. Even so, I think these resources demonstrate that neither sound box nor later horn equipment resulted in the $105 price of the Victor VI.

George P.

gramophone78 wrote: I think we need to look at the first few months of 1904 and not 1904-05.

Maybe George has some further information....??. Although, I don't this era is his specialty... .

Since the first Victor VI wasn't shipped until November 1904, that wouldn't seem helpful.

George P.

George, thanks for the information. I meant to write "the last few months of 1904" My typo... .

However, question now is....If the Vic.6 was $105 with the paper mache horn. What horn was on the $100 machine offered as well in late 1904...???. Robert also states the introductory price was $100. Just not with the #10.

Also, in light of new information I shared with you regarding the "patent" decal on my Victor mache horn....are we certain Victor's horn was made by a Japanese company and not themselves...???.

gramophone78 wrote:George, thanks for the information. I meant to write "the last few months of 1904" My typo... .

However, question now is....If the Vic.6 was $105 with the paper mache horn. What horn was on the $100 machine offer as well in late 1904...???. Robert also states the introductory price was $100. Just not with the #10.

Also, in light of new information I shared with you regarding the "patent" decal on my Victor mache horn....are we certain Victor's horn was made by a Japanese company and not themselves...???.

Wayne,
I don't mean to be thick, but I don't understand the question in your second paragraph.

As shown on page 26 of Antique Phonograph Accessories & Contraptions, the foreign patent No.1022 is sometimes found on the Victor fiber horns. Allen's Paper Lacquer Phonograph Horns were manufactured by Wm. J. Schroth in Kobe, Japan. I doubt that Victor tooled up to manufacture these horns, although applying its markings to them would be expected.

George P.

phonogfp wrote:

gramophone78 wrote:George, thanks for the information. I meant to write "the last few months of 1904" My typo... .

However, question now is....If the Vic.6 was $105 with the paper mache horn. What horn was on the $100 machine offer as well in late 1904...???. Robert also states the introductory price was $100. Just not with the #10.

Also, in light of new information I shared with you regarding the "patent" decal on my Victor mache horn....are we certain Victor's horn was made by a Japanese company and not themselves...???.

Wayne,
I don't mean to be thick, but I don't understand the question in your second paragraph.

As shown on page 26 of Antique Phonograph Accessories & Contraptions, the foreign patent No.1022 is sometimes found on the Victor fiber horns. Allen's Paper Lacquer Phonograph Horns were manufactured by Wm. J. Schroth in Kobe, Japan. I doubt that Victor tooled up to manufacture these horns, although applying its markings to them would be expected.

George P.

I just brought up the question regarding the horn in light of the newly discovered decal and whether or not it has any bearing other than being an Schroth made horn. I agree with you the horn more than likely was made by Schroth.

However, in keeping with the topic of the $105 price and using your theory because of the addition of the mache horn .....What horn was then supplied with the early Vic.6 with the $100 price....?? .

Maybe all the early Vic.6's were sold at $105..??. But, then would we not see this price in a catalog or period ad..??.

Do you have any ephemera that may shed light on this..??

phonogfp wrote:

gramophone78 wrote: I think we need to look at the first few months of 1904 and not 1904-05.

Maybe George has some further information....??. Although, I don't this era is his specialty... .

Since the first Victor VI wasn't shipped until November 1904, that wouldn't seem helpful.

George P.

gramophone78 wrote: I think we need to look at the last few months of 1904 and not 1904-05.

Can I refine my above answer also? We should admit own mistakes in the discussion, otherwise we are exposing ourselves to ridicule.

gramophone78 wrote:
However, in keeping with the topic of the $105 price and using your theory because of the addition of the mache horn .....What horn was then supplied with the early Vic.6 with the $100 price....?? .

My presumption (and that's all it is at this point) is that the earliest Victor VI with the $105.00 price was originally equipped with the fiber horn. As for the later Victor VI examples that sold for $100.00, I've shown the horn equipment for them above (except for the 24B).

George P.