The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I biggest concern is whether or not it is obvious that I did some reamalgamation. I'm honestly worried I did a bad job. Does the front of the lid look as if it was refinished, or does it blend in with the rest of the machine? I only touched up the lid and the horn doors.
-Steve

As far as I can see in the pictures, it looks fine.

Steve,

Hard to tell without actually seeing it in person, but, from the pictures it looks Quite Presentable!

Then there is the angle of only paying $600 for something repaired and refinished where you can only lose $600 if, in the future, you wanted to sell it rather than paying $4000 and still only being able to sell it later for $600.
I, personally believe that "If you're happy and you like it, Clap your Hands"!!

BwanaJoe wrote:Being a newbie I can't speak numbers when how much it will or won't knock off the price. However, IMHO, something is original only once. I'd rather have slightly worn decals, striping, finish then a brand new shiny looking machine that just isn't quite right. Now if something is so far gone that is detracts from the overall appearance or functionality then it really should be replaced or refinished properly. In that case, while not being worth as much to me as an original item, it would surely be better than what was before.

I've come out of the collector car world an personally hate nothing more than some yutz who pulls off perfectly good parts and replaces them with something that honestly just looks WRONG because they are either lazy, cheap, or just want that shiny new look. If you'd like to see a good example of this check out an "original" WWII jeep. There are quite a few shops (and individuals) that specialize in ripping apart original jeeps and throwing in parts to make them LOOK original. And they don't. Oops, off the soapbox now...

It goes deeper than that. From a purely maintenance standpoint, paints on cars and finishes on phonographs are actually there to protect what is underneath. You wouldn't not change oil in an engine or repack the grease in a spring barrel to "preserve originality"- why would you accept a badly worn finish?

Go to the Smithsonian or any other museum and you won't find "patina"... you'll find preservation.

Maintenace is a different animal entirely.

If the finish, or paint, is intact then clean it up and leave it and preserve ir in my book. Again, it is only original once. If the finish is gone and the wood, or metal, is exposed to the elements then of course protect the machine. However, I think matching the rest of the finish is preferable to stripping everything and starting over.

I don't understand the comment about the Smithsonian though. They have plenty of items as is, with no restoration, around the place. They merely stabilize what is there, warts and all.

Irreversible restoration is good for making a 4 into an 8, but it won't make an 8 into a 10. Better to refinish phonos in bad shape, that way you improve the value, not diminish it.

bigshot wrote:Irreversible restoration is good for making a 4 into an 8, but it won't make an 8 into a 10. Better to refinish phonos in bad shape, that way you improve the value, not diminish it.

Good illustration. Boils it down nicely.

Clay

It would depend on the quality of the restoration and what has been done to it.

Of course, Clean, Original Untouched machines with minimal wear will always go for more..Clean and minimal wear being the key words..


)

Tony K.

Edison Collector/Restorer

winsleydale wrote:I view refinishing in a totally different light than most of the other members here (I think). If a machine is looking dull or worn, I won't think twice about rubbing in some stain to even out the color and putting on a coat of shellac.

You can rest assured that, beyond wise prudent and purist words, you're in very good company. Nobody really likes to look at scuffed corners, missing veneer, or wormwood holes. Never retouched, factory-like gramophones are mostly in collectors' fantasy, today.

Personally I never hesitate to rehaul everything that needs to be rehauled, if it lays inside the boundaries of my skills. I really don't like to have objects that are "all original" and that I would be ashemed to show to relatives or friends: it makes no sense. Also, gramophones were made to be a pleasure to look at, but also to play records and enjoy, and that's what I like to do. Keeping them as useless museum items behind a shrine is nonsense to me.

By the way I also immediately clean off the layer of grease, dirt and mold that is often referred to with the fancy word "patina". Metal was nickeled or chromed to be shiny, not to be a substrate of dirt. And by the way, in general, I don't like to keep dirty objects in my house.

oldphonographsteve wrote:I biggest concern is whether or not it is obvious that I did some reamalgamation. I'm honestly worried I did a bad job. Does the front of the lid look as if it was refinished, or does it blend in with the rest of the machine? I only touched up the lid and the horn doors.
-Steve

At least judging by the pictures, you did an excellent job. Hadn't you told me, I would never have figured that a reamalgamation had been performed. Also, I would be more willing to buy (and pay) a gramophone like yours is now, than a gramophone with obvious problems on the lid's finish although "all original".