Page 2 of 3
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Wed Dec 25, 2019 11:20 pm
by 52089
I personally like to 1-90 table top machine. Takes up very little space and has a true Orthophonic horn.
The fact that I have one for sale on Yankee Trader is just coincidence.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:14 am
by OrthoFan
52089 wrote:I personally like to 1-90 table top machine. Takes up very little space and has a true Orthophonic horn.
The fact that I have one for sale on Yankee Trader is just coincidence.
This one (?) --
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42302
OrthoFan
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:55 pm
by JerryVan
I don't know the dimensions, but also consider the 8-12. They have a very shallow depth to the cabinet.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:41 pm
by VanEpsFan1914
Let's not forget that the Brunswick Panatrope 10-7 and other small phonographs offer similar performance in a small Consolette-style case.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:42 pm
by 52089
OrthoFan wrote:52089 wrote:I personally like to 1-90 table top machine. Takes up very little space and has a true Orthophonic horn.
The fact that I have one for sale on Yankee Trader is just coincidence.
This one (?) --
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42302
OrthoFan
Yes, that's mine. I also have a 1-70 available.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:14 pm
by SteveM
VanEpsFan1914 wrote:Let's not forget that the Brunswick Panatrope 10-7 and other small phonographs offer similar performance in a small Consolette-style case.
I know, but I want it to be a Camden-built machine as that’s where she lives.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:15 pm
by bigshot
I've had two VV-2-65s and they are MUCH easier to move around than a wooden cabinet machine! I've had no problems with pot metal cracking on them and their sound boxes are the newer Orthophonic kind, so they were both in perfect shape and didn't need rebuilding. The only reason I had to replace my first 2-65 was because I had used it daily for almost ten years and got impatient winding it one day and broke the spring. I found another one on eBay for $150 and I was back and running. These phonographs have great sound and play acoustics much better than the cabinet ones with exponential horns. The only problem with these is the alligator skin paper covering and the leather handle. That usually looks a bit tatty after 70 years.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:25 pm
by OrthoFan
bigshot wrote:...That usually looks a bit tatty after 70 years.
Actually, more like 90 years!
It's hard to believe that 1950 will be 70 years ago in a few days, and 1930 will be a
90 years ago
!
Time keeps moving on and it's dragging me right along with it.
OrthoFan
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:25 pm
by gramophone-georg
OrthoFan wrote:bigshot wrote:...That usually looks a bit tatty after 70 years.
Actually, more like 90 years!
It's hard to believe that 1950 will be 70 years ago in a few days, and 1930 will be a
90 years ago
!
Time keeps moving on and it's dragging me right along with it.
OrthoFan
Don't feel like it's a lonely drag, Pally.
Re: Best “bang for the buck” small orthophonic?
Posted: Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:30 pm
by AmberolaAndy
gramophone-georg wrote:OrthoFan wrote:bigshot wrote:...That usually looks a bit tatty after 70 years.
Actually, more like 90 years!
It's hard to believe that 1950 will be 70 years ago in a few days, and 1930 will be a
90 years ago
!
Time keeps moving on and it's dragging me right along with it.
OrthoFan
Don't feel like it's a lonely drag, Pally.
I know. When somebody says something happened 30 years ago my mind thinks 1973 and not 1990.