The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Well, you forced me to get off my keyster and spend 5 minutes checking a couple of serial numbers!

I checked a B-250 which is numbered 3424. That clearly shows that the A and B 250 models were not numbered sequentially (as evidenced by the A-250 numbered 12887). I also checked a C-250 and it is numbered 27659, which is considerably earlier than the CL example. I stand by my earlier statement that I don't believe DD machines were numbered in blocks (meaning each model was numbered from 0).

John, those are simply lousy CL photos!

George P.

Hmmmmm.... What you say makes sense but how would you explain the A300 in an Amberola 1 cabinet numbered 2503? My understanding was not more than 125 made. I think someone needs to start another project collecting SN and characteristics of a few of the DD models?

I own a C-250 with serial number 6703. Pretty sure mine is older. Also, the bedplate decals are a bit more elaborate than what this one appears to have.

Tarheel,

Looks like more support for George's theory that each model started numbering with no. 1. Still there are unexplained examples which don't support the theory, such as the with a relatively high SN, 2503.

Is 125 x A300s based on surviving examples or some other data?
125 machines compared to maybe 60,000 of a machine that was only $50 cheaper seems like an awefully low number to me. 2500-3000 seems like a much more realistic ratio in my mind.
I guess the only way to really know would be to research and keep a record of serial numbers on surviving examples?

gramophoneshane wrote:Is 125 x A300s based on surviving examples or some other data?
125 machines compared to maybe 60,000 of a machine that was only $50 cheaper seems like an awefully low number to me. 2500-3000 seems like a much more realistic ratio in my mind.
I guess the only way to really know would be to research and keep a record of serial numbers on surviving examples?

The estimate of 125 having been manufactured is based on Frow’s book. Acc. to Frow, the first 25 were made from retrofitted Amberola 1 cabinets and the rest in newly manufactured new cabinets.

It’s not uncommon that the machines costing more than $250 were manufactured in very small numbers. The A290, A375 and on up were manufactured in similarly small numbers, again acc. to Frow’s book.

I’m aware of only one other surviving example of the A300, pictured in one of George and Tim’s book. There may well be more though.

In the instance of the A-300, I believe that the serial numbers are integrated within those for the A-250, since Edison advertising offered the A-250 in mahogany, oak, or Circassian walnut. I never quite understood why the Circassian A-250 was given a different model number (A-300), but based upon the existing serial numbers, it appears that all A-250s - regardless of cabinet - were numbered sequentially.

George P.

phonogfp wrote:In the instance of the A-300, I believe that the serial numbers are integrated within those for the A-250, since Edison advertising offered the A-250 in mahogany, oak, or Circassian walnut. I never quite understood why the Circassian A-250 was given a different model number (A-300), but based upon the existing serial numbers, it appears that all A-250s - regardless of cabinet - were numbered sequentially.

George P.

That would make sense. I guess generally most models were offered in various finishes of oak or mahogany and all priced the same. The circaissian walnut finish didn't quite fit the scheme!

In looking at this,From the looks of it, I would have to say that someone "swapped" the original C-250 Gold plated reproducer for an earlier or lower model chrome one.

Tony K.