The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Here is my less than pristine but real Concert reproducer with incorrect thumb screw, (I'll make a new one some day). The one offered looks very good to me except for a few small issues that may have to do with it being late in production example or from being a replacement part and not on the machine line.

The lettering on the front of this reproducer is raised, but mine is not. Typically the displaced material is removed before plating. The serial number on the back also seems to be a little modern. If you look at the 7 on mine and the one that another posted example, they are the same. But my 5 and the other poster's 2 are much different than those on the NOS example. The locating pin is fairly long on the on the NOS part where mine and the other example are both short. The reproducer in question is later than either posted example, so the serial numbering stamps could have been updated and they may have stopped finishing the face before plating.

On the side of authenticity, the knurl is the same pitch and the lettering on the face seems to be perfect. I think that it could be authentic. The throat on mine is dark inside the same as this example. Based on the condition of the box, I would expect the contents to be just as good, so my vote, for what it is worth, is that this is a brand new, never mounted, 114 or so year old stock reproducer and probably worth the money, (probably worth more if it never gets mounted). Nothing is new twice.

The seller sent me an image of the bottom of the Concert Storage box and the serial number is not the same as the reproducer. John

Considering the fact that the Chinese have taken the time to convincingly counterfeit US silver dollars, nothing would surprise me...

Ripduf1 wrote:The seller sent me an image of the bottom of the Concert Storage box and the serial number is not the same as the reproducer. John

Can I change my vote to "it is likely to be a reproduction"? The seller removed the auction anyway because "there was an error in the listing".

I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

fran604g wrote:I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

I had noticed that too, but a chamfer could have been a change that the later reproducers received. There are 2 things that that photo shows that I had not considered. The first is that it looks like the reproducer body and throat appear to be a single unit instead of a tube inserted into a body. That wastes material and adds machining time and it is not the way that my reproducer was built. It still may be a tube that goes into a stepped bore and the face of the tube cannot be seen from the front. Either way, is is different from the other examples shown. Does anyone have a Concert reproducer with a late serial number for comparison?

The second is that the inside diameter of the throat is smaller on the listed reproducer. The side by side pictures are nearly the same scale, but the through bore is not the same.

Django wrote:

fran604g wrote:I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

I had noticed that too, but a chamfer could have been a change that the later reproducers received. There are 2 things that that photo shows that I had not considered. The first is that it looks like the reproducer body and throat appear to be a single unit instead of a tube inserted into a body. That wastes material and adds machining time and it is not the way that my reproducer was built. It still may be a tube that goes into a stepped bore and the face of the tube cannot be seen from the front.

Exactly my thoughts. With modern CNC machine tools, machining it from a single piece of round stock would be the prefered way to manufacture a replica quickly, and cheaply. A chamfer would be employed to clean up the sharp edge after machining the 2 bores, and overall it would be a very simple program to write and implement for a turning center.

I hope other examples of originals are shared to help establish more information for us all.

Best,
Fran

fran604g wrote:I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

The beveled edge pointed out in the picture is correct and original.

If you compare different Concert reproducers you will see that this bevel runs from almost non existent to pronounced as in the picture of the Concert reproducer in question.

I would guess the difference in bevels is related to how the original machines were set up after tool changes or tool breakage.

Larry Crandell

Phonolair wrote:

fran604g wrote:I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

The beveled edge pointed out in the picture is correct and original.

If you compare different Concert reproducers you will see that this bevel runs from almost non existent to pronounced as in the picture of the Concert reproducer in question.

I would guess the difference in bevels is related to how the original machines were set up after tool changes or tool breakage.

Larry Crandell

Thanks, Larry. I think it could also be attributed to the skill of the machinist.

Fran

Phonolair wrote:

fran604g wrote:I know less than nothing as to the validity of any machining techniques that may have been employed in the manufacturing of the originals, however, one thing that immediately jumps out at me is the beveled edge on the left image. That could be a significant clue to the authenticity of the one in question.

Best,
Fran

The beveled edge pointed out in the picture is correct and original.

If you compare different Concert reproducers you will see that this bevel runs from almost non existent to pronounced as in the picture of the Concert reproducer in question.

I would guess the difference in bevels is related to how the original machines were set up after tool changes or tool breakage.

Larry Crandell

Exactly. While they didn't have CNC equipment back then, they did have machines for making production runs. Turret lathes and automatic screw machines could turn out parts in very fast succession. As Larry mentions, the set-up of these machines was not 100% repeatable and was left somewhat to the set-up guy, who usually differed from the actual operator. Also, the product of one individual machine may vary slightly from the product of another, again due to small set-up variations.