The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Sidewinder wrote: Where do I find the serial number?

Look here:

number is 3511

Thank you. That number is well embedded in other G&T Lambert serial numbers.

Frank Lambert is buried in Brooklyn, NY (in a solid copper casket) and made most of his money from inventive work in water meters. He was born in France and came to the US in the summer of 1876. His historic talking machine (intended for a talking clock), made under sub-contract to Edison in 1878, still exists, and contains an experimental lead sleeve which indicates work going on in that year. Remarkably, Lambert had testified that he was already working on some kind of recording back in France, before he emigrated.

If anyone is looking for info on his life and (many) patents, please let me know. He was associated with the Ansonia Clock Co. and often traveled between Connecticut and Brooklyn, NY. On the biographical side, he and his brother John (a chemist), were lodgers in the Simonet home ca 1878 (near Erasmus High School), and Frank married the man's wife and John married the daughter.

Of course, he should not be confused with Thomas Lambert, the inventor of the celluloid cylinder (nor were they related).

Allen

AllenKoe wrote:His historic talking machine (intended for a talking clock), made under sub-contract to Edison in 1878, still exists, and contains an experimental lead sleeve which indicates work going on in that year.

As can be derived from George's @phonogfp answer above, other researchers (me included) are explicitly questioning "1878" as manufacturing date of the Lambert phonograph, see: "Dialogue on 'The Oldest Playable Recording' (continued)", ARSC Journal, Autumn 2002, pp. 237-242.

In 2007, I wrote a comprehensive article (in German) about Edison's actual talking clock of 1878, published in: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chronometrie, Jahresschrift 2007, Band 46, pp. 41-45. I will make it available on the web in the near future.

In 2007, I wrote a comprehensive article (in German) about Edison's actual talking clock of 1878, published in: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Chronometrie, Jahresschrift 2007, Band 46, pp. 41-45. I will make it available on the web in the near future.

This will be good to have in English (and/or German). We are looking forward to it...

Lambert's testimony in April 1896 does refer to a model/replica that he made BUT he also says that he destroyed it (before the Deposition). Apparently he was not paid for his costs in making it, and one can detect a certain friction between Lambert and the Edison interests (over failed payments for testimony, etc).

The Lambert machine that does exist (found in Lambert's private storage room in 1991) seems too finely made to be a mere (later) replica, if that is the implication. The lead cylinder still on it (with its missing "ten o'clock" from the sequential recitation of hours - in English) seems more consistent with a recent immigrant (Lambert came to the US in the summer of 1876). There is also no reference to any lead sleeve being "made" for Edison's lawyers.

Given that Lambert also claimed prior experimentation with sound recording (back in France in 1871), I am open to the actual date when the (existing) lead sleeve was made, 1878 or 1879. The contract with Davies (for a talking clock) was signed in Jan 1878, if I recall. The original issue of APM also contained a detailed list of Frank (Francois) Lambert's 60 US patents which I can scan/copy for perusal here (if wished). In the period between 1878 and 1884, he applied for other patents as well, but they were not granted (in the US). Even Hollingshead's pioneering work (engraved metal discs) was rejected by the US Examiners soon after TAE's initial patent grant.

Allen

AllenKoe wrote: Lambert's testimony in April 1896 does refer to a model/replica that he made BUT he also says that he destroyed it (before the Deposition). Apparently he was not paid for his costs in making it, and one can detect a certain friction between Lambert and the Edison interests (over failed payments for testimony, etc).

The Lambert machine that does exist (found in Lambert's private storage room in 1991) seems too finely made to be a mere (later) replica, if that is the implication. The lead cylinder still on it (with its missing "ten o'clock" from the sequential recitation of hours - in English) seems more consistent with a recent immigrant (Lambert came to the US in the summer of 1876). There is also no reference to any lead sleeve being "made" for Edison's lawyers.

Given that Lambert also claimed prior experimentation with sound recording (back in France in 1871), I am open to the actual date when the (existing) lead sleeve was made, 1878 or 1879.

Allen

Frank Lambert's original unabridged testimony:

http://edison.rutgers.edu/images/el/el0429.jpg

http://edison.rutgers.edu/images/el/el0430.jpg

http://edison.rutgers.edu/images/el/el0431.jpg

http://edison.rutgers.edu/images/el/el0432.jpg

This certainly gives the impression of Lambert being a hostile deposer. He claims to have no knowledge of the status of his original machine (Answer 38), as well as having ordered the destruction of the replica (Answer 40). He refuses to answer a number of questions. He makes no claims regarding the machine in question being any earlier than 1879 (Answer 21 and 27).

I freely and responsibly admit to not knowing whether the existing machine dates from 1879 or 1896. I'm in good company in taking this position.

Arguments relating to the quality of the existing machine and/or the vagaries of language acquisition are worthy of debate, but should not constitute the basis for definitive statements of fact, to wit: that the existing machine dates from 1878. A contract does not necessarily date an artifact.

George P.

Putting aside the questionable manufacture date of the phonograph, the recording on the lead cylinder is not datable at all. Provided it was the last recording, when was it taken, and by whom? In 1879, in 1896, or even later? We will never know. This is where we see the sadest effect of Lambert's secretive testimony. I really wished he had locked away the phonograph (and with it the recording), including a dated and more detailed testimony, at his lawyer's office for us to rediscover.

Those who have reservations about when the Lambert phonograph was made, and/or its contents engraved on a lead sleeve, may wish to look at a more detailed analysis of what is actually embedded in the grooves.

Theoretically, of course, anything is possible, and Frank Lambert did live until 1937. But consider the actual transcription which is further discussed on this website:

http://www.pong-story.com/lambert/

The most reasonable explanation suggests that these multiple attempts to record the time were done ca 1879. Each modern collector is free to make up his own mind, however.

Perhaps when Stephan's 2007 article is made available, we will have more information on this subject.

Allen

AllenKoe wrote:
Each modern collector is free to make up his own mind, however.

I for one will continue to abstain from coming to a conclusion until I have more hard data. There's no shame in admitting to not knowing for sure.

George P.