The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

SteveM wrote:So what were these for? Extra large base for extra stability? Smaller crank (it seems?) and single spring for easier operation (and weight savings) by women?

It was a big, impressive looking machine which was offered rather cheaply, as part of a scheme. The American Woman’s League was a scheme by a publisher to get the nearly free postage offered to educational materials. This actually developed into a strong Progressive Era social benefit society. Club houses were built all over the country. The publisher arranged to get discounts on modern (Mission) furnishings for the club houses. These furnishings included Columbia Grafonolas and records (which records were offered to chapters as part of a subscription lending library scheme). Late on the Mission style first version of the Regent was offered at a very low price to chapters furnishing their chapter houses.

The whole thing started out as a marketing scheme, but grew into a strong social movement, particularly in the Midwest. American awomans League chapters were instrumental in the success of both the Sufferage and Temperance movements.

I learned a long time ago NOT to rush a judgement when deciding what was done then and what was not done. In my opinion, to label someone's offering as a non-original, or put together machine, especially when just looking at photographs, is not fair to the owner, nor to the hobby. I think it is better to let the experts examine the machine in person, then decide. Some historically significant machine may be dismissed, or worse, dismantled for parts, because an online expert gave a possibly erroneous opinion. Besides, if the expert is proven wrong, there goes their credibility! Just my take on this. Cheers, ?Russie

startgroove wrote:I learned a long time ago NOT to rush a judgement when deciding what was done then and what was not done. In my opinion, to label someone's offering as a non-original, or put together machine, especially when just looking at photographs, is not fair to the owner, nor to the hobby. I think it is better to let the experts examine the machine in person, then decide. Some historically significant machine may be dismissed, or worse, dismantled for parts, because an online expert gave a possibly erroneous opinion. Besides, if the expert is proven wrong, there goes their credibility! Just my take on this. Cheers, ?Russie

I’m currently attempting to reassemble what had once been an original, untouched, unrestored electric motor open horn machjne, a Columbia BII. I had carefully examined the machine, but couldn’t quite afford it at auction. A couple years later the remnants of the stripped machine were made available to me. Self-proclaimed experts had told the buyer that the machine (which they had not personally examined) could not possibly be original, and so the owner stripped off the oak horn and back bracket. When I’m finished, I will only have a reconstruction, alas, not an original, rare machjne.

Uncle Vanya, thanks for all of that. Fascinating.

startgroove wrote:I learned a long time ago NOT to rush a judgement when deciding what was done then and what was not done. In my opinion, to label someone's offering as a non-original, or put together machine, especially when just looking at photographs, is not fair to the owner, nor to the hobby. I think it is better to let the experts examine the machine in person, then decide. Some historically significant machine may be dismissed, or worse, dismantled for parts, because an online expert gave a possibly erroneous opinion. Besides, if the expert is proven wrong, there goes their credibility! Just my take on this. Cheers, ?Russie

I completely agree. We should all have a healthy respect for what we don't know, and make allowances for that. Things like an Edison Standard D with a banner decal and a Magnavox horn, along with similar contrivances, are easy to spot. Unfortunately, too many of us are quick to judge a phonograph based upon what "we've seen." Even more unfortunately, the victims of this hubris are too often the very rare artifacts that virtually no one "has seen." Uncle Vanya's story is a good example.

We're all subject to this reflex. For an early example of my own hubris, here's an illustration from page 11 of Antique Phonograph Accessories & Contraptions. I wish I could say it never happened again!

George P.

George P: well, it certainly does look like one of Professor Grampy's homemade contrivances.

Photos exist of the interiors of at least sixteen of the 39 American Woman’s League Chapter Houses.
Most of them include a first style Columbia Regent in Mission Oak, with the flap lid rather than the drawer
And doors over the mouth of the horn as opposed to louvers.

Some great-looking old furniture. I've never seen an authentic Mission interior before and these are really kind of cool...stuff looks like you could make it yourself.

An Edison Amberola in oak would fit in nicely here, like the 30, 50, and 75 models.

I stand by my post. I am not judging, just stating my observations from experience. There are still unanswered questions. When you lift off the turntable, are there 4 holes where a dust ring would be? If not, then this machine does not have a dust ring. I think the turntable ring and block though well done were added on, and not original. I'm still unclear about the elongated hole with the latch and speed control together. It's still a nice machine and lots of potential of restoration. The Triumph is a nice machine, too.
Harvey Kravitz

startgroove wrote:I learned a long time ago NOT to rush a judgement when deciding what was done then and what was not done. In my opinion, to label someone's offering as a non-original, or put together machine, especially when just looking at photographs, is not fair to the owner, nor to the hobby. I think it is better to let the experts examine the machine in person, then decide. Some historically significant machine may be dismissed, or worse, dismantled for parts, because an online expert gave a possibly erroneous opinion. Besides, if the expert is proven wrong, there goes their credibility! Just my take on this. Cheers, ?Russie

Phonofreak wrote:I stand by my post. I am not judging, just stating my observations from experience. There are still unanswered questions. When you lift off the turntable, are there 4 holes where a dust ring would be? If not, then this machine does not have a dust ring. I think the turntable ring and block though well done were added on, and not original. I'm still unclear about the elongated hole with the latch and speed control together. It's still a nice machine and lots of potential of restoration. The Triumph is a nice machine, too.
Harvey Kravitz

startgroove wrote:I learned a long time ago NOT to rush a judgement when deciding what was done then and what was not done. In my opinion, to label someone's offering as a non-original, or put together machine, especially when just looking at photographs, is not fair to the owner, nor to the hobby. I think it is better to let the experts examine the machine in person, then decide. Some historically significant machine may be dismissed, or worse, dismantled for parts, because an online expert gave a possibly erroneous opinion. Besides, if the expert is proven wrong, there goes their credibility! Just my take on this. Cheers, ?Russie

First of all, There is no elongated hole between the latch and speed control on the machine in question. If one carefully looks at the photograph one sees that there was a square slack cut through the molding to allow the speed control to bass and next to it is a circular hole that is drilled to hold the Lid latch. This machine, the one picture by the original poster is identical in almost every way save for the wood dust ring with the machine that had been restored for the Clute Texas woman’s league clubhouse.

You’re absolutely right about the block at the back of the case to which the back bracket attaches it was not fitted at the time the case was made,In Cleveland, at the Theodore Kuntdz factory for Talk-O-Phine. It was, however fitted at the time the machine was assembled. The restored example in Clute Texas has a similar block as does the machine that a friend of mine in Boston has owned for at least a 60 years, as does the example that had once been owned by the late Johnny Bohem. It appears that this is just the way that these machines were built. I have a spare cabinet stored -somewhere- but since I’ve not laid hands on it since the first Bush administration I will not assert that it is definitely fitted with such a block. That said, the box on this cabinet is smaller than that used on any other Cold mbira machine. It beggars credulity to suggest tha that famously parsimonious company would have a set of special patterns made for one scheme machine which was built in a run of a few hundred units. i

It is very dangerous to make assumptions. You know the fellow who tore apart that electric motor improved Sterling got his advice from several people on this particular board.