The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I wish I could give you a correct answer. However, Berliner "front mount" machines is where I stop. I have never owned or cared to buy any of the later "FM" machines....not sure why. As you wrote, there are some very cute models that were made.
If I was to take a guess as to why. Then two reasons come to mind. First....."cost". Everything costs and if you are wanting to sell a machine for say $5.00 and make a few cents more......you will cut corners... . Second, with regards to a "M". I think as the motor became stronger, it may not have been as important to be there....???.
Berliners are not a real powerhouse motor. In fact, I made a demonstration video on the "last" of the TM's that was re-designed to play one side of a 10" record. As you can see in the video.....it just made it.
So, with Berliners, as the motor winds down the record nut becomes even more important. The motor would just stop as the needle wears into a point causing even more drag.

Actually, I wonder if the nut was initially needed when celluloid & rubber Berliner discs were being made?
I would assume both these materials would have been lighter than their shellac alternative, and they probably caused more needle drag in the grooves being a softer material, which together may have resulted in a stationary record on a revolving turntable.
A very light weight 5" or 7" disc wouldn't have created much surface friction to grab the turntable either, especially when you consider the underside of the disc was often smooth as a babies backside.
I know I've had trouble in the past when playing some small kiddie discs on certain machines, particularly if the disc was slightly warped/cupped, or if the spindle hole wasn't a snug fit on the spindle.
Perhaps as manufacturing technics & materials improved, and larger disc sizes became popular & affordable, they found the nut was no longer needed?

Only slightly off topic, but the idea of record hold downs is alive and kicking, although they seem to be more for stabilizing the turntable than keeping down record drag. How much drag is there with a tracking force of 0.5 g?? Here's a photo from a current ebay auction (sorry for the use of ebay but they do have good pics.) there are actually several different types listed.
I like Shane's explanation since early records did not have a lot of mass and the holes are sometimes larger than the spindle, the clamp would keep the record centered. Eventually they just became an artifact.

I had a chance to make some reference pics of some of my US & Canadian record nuts. I hope these are able to provide some help to members. Enjoy.

Wayne:

Great reference photos This is absolutely what I love about the members of this board, their knowledge, and willingness to share. Keep it up !

gramophoneshane wrote:Actually, I wonder if the nut was initially needed when celluloid & rubber Berliner discs were being made?
I would assume both these materials would have been lighter than their shellac alternative, and they probably caused more needle drag in the grooves being a softer material, which together may have resulted in a stationary record on a revolving turntable.
A very light weight 5" or 7" disc wouldn't have created much surface friction to grab the turntable either, especially when you consider the underside of the disc was often smooth as a babies backside.

You certainly hit the spot. After 1896 the screw-down was continued as typological rudiment, as the historian would put it.

My old Sony player still has a CD hold-down or "puck". You could even buy a high-end "puck" at the ridiculous price of $150 as an extra, see small photo below.

Thanks, Gramo, for the excellent comparisons of Berliner record nuts.

This thread reminded me of 38 year-old mystery. In September 1973 I bought a Victor Royal missing its arms, sound box, horn, and crank. In subsequent years I managed to find all the original parts for it, but one thing still nags me. The record nut that came on the machine certainly doesn't look like any other that I've seen. I'm 99% sure that the part was not originally a record nut. Yet, despite all those other major missing parts, this nut was still there. I replaced the nut with a more typical example, but I've kept it all these years just in case I should learn that it's legitimate - unlikely as that seems.

Has anyone seen a record nut like this? Or is it unrelated to talking machines as I've suspected?

George P.

WOW!!!!. I'm a little shocked by your last post George. Only because it was just this morning that I was going though your "Compendium" and noticed your "R" having that little record nut..... I was going to send you an email today about it.... . Anyway, thank you for posting better pics of it. The "R" pic in the book is so small to show the detail.
I have to say, I have never seen one like your either. Do you think is is factory??. Regarding the little nut I asked about......I have learned that there were period record (holders?) that were designed using record nuts to hold stacks of disc's. Now,I have not seen a record holder like this. From what I understand, both Berliner and Zonophone made such a holder....??. I also understand that these record nuts were not only smaller but also thicker. However, I have also heard they are the exact same as was used on the machines.
George, can you add to this or enlighten us on this. Perhaps you have a record holder like this to provide a pic to compare??.

Intuitively it seems like the smaller surface area design of the nut George posted would make it more difficult to hold the record in place. Could this mean it's a very early design, where they'd not thought that out, or a very late design from the time some were already questioning whether a hold down was needed at all?

There were record nuts used in some carrying cases to secure the various parts inside, but beyond that application I've never seen them used for holding stacks of records.

As I say, my belief is 99% sure that the part I pictured was not originally a record nut (but I'd love to learn that it is!).

George P.