Page 2 of 2
Re: What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:24 am
by phonogfp
Excellent points, Larry.
It may well be that Qs supplied for Languagephone, like those built for Busy Bee, were not originally equipped with mandrel tags.
George P.
Re: What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:01 pm
by clevelander
My Q, identical to Larry's (Ser No104955) has the mandrel disc, and was certainly not sold as a Languagephone.
It has the original rubber buffers, and has therefore never been in a case.
Regards,
Alistair.
Re: What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:24 pm
by Phonolair
clevelander wrote:My Q, identical to Larry's (Ser No104955) has the mandrel disc, and was certainly not sold as a Languagephone.
It has the original rubber buffers, and has therefore never been in a case.
Regards,
Alistair.
Very interesting Alistair,
does your Q have TYPE Q stamped on the end above the patent dates.
I wonder if it could have anything to do with the big difference in serial numbers. Yours is just over 100 thousand and mine is over a million.
Best Regards, Larry
Re: What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?
Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:13 pm
by clevelander
Larry,
No, mine does not have a Q stamp.
My machine has been discussed on this forum previously, and the concensus was that the final number was missing.
Re: What's the story, unmarked Columbia Q ?
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
by Phonolair
clevelander wrote:Larry,
No, mine does not have a Q stamp.
My machine has been discussed on this forum previously, and the concensus was that the final number was missing.
Thanks Alistair
So I guess the mystery goes on. I find it very strange that Type Q is not stamped on the end.
The serial number of yours and mine both fall into the Language Phone serial numbers range, so that may still be a possibility.
For now I'll turn my attention to something else and set this one aside until more information comes to light.
Thanks for every ones input.
Best Regards, Larry