The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I'd still partially repaint it I'm afraid. We are just talking about bare metal on a horn (which is NOT original) after all. It's not like you want to paint the pyramids of giza.

That just HAS to be the horn off the Talkophone discussed on here last year? Did it come from a Mr Hope in England?

He told someone that the bare metal (on the outer face of the horn) was the original finish? Or more to the point, that the existing finish was simply 'blue, just very faded'.

Sidewinder wrote:

JerryVan wrote:I would not repaint that horn. You only get original once, and when it's gone... all you have is another repainted horn.

Very sound advice!

Agree, my vote would be to leave as is.

Steve wrote:That just HAS to be the horn off the Talkophone discussed on here last year? Did it come from a Mr Hope in England?

He told someone that the bare metal (on the outer face of the horn) was the original finish? Or more to the point, that the existing finish was simply 'blue, just very faded'.

Steve I'm not certain but he may be correct. I've never seen one of those horns with any paint on the outside. It could be that they were left bare metal or polished originally in some way. Of course it could also be poor quality original paint used on the outside or bonding problem but you'd think even then there'd be something left.

I find the debate over whether to repaint horns quite interesting. The logic that says "when it's gone, it's gone" (referring to original paint/ finish) is of course correct BUT why do owners of vintage cars (the nearest equivalent to a phonograph from the period) appear to take the complete opposite view when it comes to paintwork on vehicles? Surely the same logic applies and yet I don't see many vintage cars with completely original paintwork.

Steve wrote:I find the debate over whether to repaint horns quite interesting. The logic that says "when it's gone, it's gone" (referring to original paint/ finish) is of course correct BUT why do owners of vintage cars (the nearest equivalent to a phonograph from the period) appear to take the complete opposite view when it comes to paintwork on vehicles? Surely the same logic applies and yet I don't see many vintage cars with completely original paintwork.

That's the behavior which results from years of inhaling leaded gasoline, (benzine). In extreme cases they become so irrational that not only do they repaint their vintage cars, they chop them, essentially destroying them, and make street rods out of them.

Valecnik wrote:

Steve wrote:I find the debate over whether to repaint horns quite interesting. The logic that says "when it's gone, it's gone" (referring to original paint/ finish) is of course correct BUT why do owners of vintage cars (the nearest equivalent to a phonograph from the period) appear to take the complete opposite view when it comes to paintwork on vehicles? Surely the same logic applies and yet I don't see many vintage cars with completely original paintwork.

That's the behavior which results from years of inhaling leaded gasoline, (benzine). In extreme cases they become so irrational that not only do they repaint their vintage cars, they chop them, essentially destroying them, and make street rods out of them.

Or polish every brass brake & gas line with brasso for a mirror finish

My guess is that with vintage car paintwork, it is seldom worth keeping. The effects of outdoor weather, road grim & constant washing, not to mention dings & scratches a car would accumulate (and be badly repaired & repainted in colours that dont quite match)would all take a heavy toll on original paintwork, leaving it thin, patchy & rusty.

Getting back to the horn, I have my doubts that a partially painted horn with bare metal would have sold.
This one obviously had a translucent blue lacquer applied to the interior. Other horns I have/had, used the same type of see through coating, that allowed the underlying tin plating to show through the lacquer, giving the horn a bright, almost pearlised effect to the lacquer.
In the early days, blue paint was very unstable, & for that reason, it was seldom used to paint houses etc, because it was known to fade & deteriorate a lot quicker than any other colour.
I'd say the exterior of this horn was painted with the same dark blue lacquer used on the interior, & because of it's nature, has simply disintergrated over time.

That just HAS to be the horn off the Talkophone discussed on here last year? Did it come from a Mr Hope in England?

He told someone that the bare metal (on the outer face of the horn) was the original finish? Or more to the point, that the existing finish was simply 'blue, just very faded'.

I don't think so... bought this at the Wayne show.

I don't think so... bought this at the Wayne show.

In that case, I would definitely definitely NOT attempt any kind of repaint or touching up because it appears to me that this horn is one of at least three surviving examples of exactly the same pattern and 'color', made by Hawthorn & Sheeble, and which have aged in EXACTLY the same way. I therefore think it's a 'typical' condition horn and arguably needs to be kept that way. If it was any other horn by Victor or Edison and was simply a poorly kept example, then yes, I'd say go for the repaint. In this instance you arguably have a very GOOD condition horn because the condition of your example is not the exception, it appears to be the 'rule' and shows us (and future generations of collectors) how these things should look today.

Sorry, the purist in me just came pouring out!

Steve wrote:

I don't think so... bought this at the Wayne show.

In that case, I would definitely definitely NOT attempt any kind of repaint or touching up because it appears to me that this horn is one of at least three surviving examples of exactly the same pattern and 'color', made by Hawthorn & Sheeble, and which have aged in EXACTLY the same way. I therefore think it's a 'typical' condition horn and arguably needs to be kept that way. If it was any other horn by Victor or Edison and was simply a poorly kept example, then yes, I'd say go for the repaint. In this instance you arguably have a very GOOD condition horn because the condition of your example is not the exception, it appears to be the 'rule' and shows us (and future generations of collectors) how these things should look.

Sorry, the purist in me just came pouring out!

Another couple arguements for not painting the horn
1) the backside, normally when displayed on a machine is almost invisible.
2) a lot of people, (me included)probably would be unlikely to buy the machine if the horn had been repainted or, if I did purchase, I'd offer the price of machine only without the horn, possibly just a bit more.

Does anyone have images of these two other horns? I believe, from scratches that are more recent, that the horn was a shinny tin at one point and that the clear blue coat could have very well been what coated the now rusted parts. Since this is impossible to replicate without an insane amount of restoration, I probably will leave it alone...

It did look good on a well used but descent shape Victor V that I had, but on my German HMV it doesnt sit well because the machine is in too nice of condition. So I guess I need to buy another phonograph! Gosh, what a dilema!