The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

We MUST see videos of it playing!

Bill

I'm working on a video. My current issue is finding a horn to play it through. NONE of my horns have the correct size nipple. And I don't want to modify an original horn. I am waiting for one that is already damaged to surface, to modify. As I may have said before, this is a shelf queen, not a working girl. I have not worked on a BM before, but I suspect that it has the same 3-shoe system that a BC has, thus making this one even more important to preserve.

The Encyclopedic Sir George Paul and my friend George "Puck" G. in Chicago suggested that I get an account with Ancestry.com to research the Italian family whose basement this was found in.

Well, I have started by researching Thomas Hood Macdonald and found that his son and daughter had no connections with Providence Rhode Island. Which brought me to start researching the Italian family name, more specifically the area of North Providence. I found more than just dozens of US census reports, and most of them were shoemakers and laborers. One son had listed on the census report: foundry worker. But, I need to discount this as there were foundries all over at the turn of the 20th century. RESEARCH CONTINUES.

Current ideas, in order of my believability;

1. It was left in the basement by a previous family who had a higher-up interest in Columbia Graphophone Co., shortly after it ceased operation due to broken governor springs...and forgotten.

2. It was thrown out, and a worker/engineer from the Bridgeport, CT factory brought it home as a bauble. Remember Amberola 1-A, Serial #2? The only thing that validated its origin is the research I did finding the patent attorney review of the machine through the Edison Papers Project at Rutgers University. The information was NOT available in the bound book copy (which I scanned through at the University Of Rochester, on the good graces of the librarian as I was not a student) ...or on the Internet. ONLY in microfilm edition.

3. It was a pre-production model that was cancelled because it made more sense for the machine to play the 6" 20th Century cylinders. An orphan.

As mentioned before, I do not have a horn set up for this, so I improvised with a magazine cover from the recycling box!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJUw7NBAeDo[/youtube]

Sounds great! How would you compare its loudness, hearing it in person, with a regular phonograph?

Clay

MicaMonster wrote: The Encyclopedic Sir George Paul...

Who buys encyclopedias anymore?

A more likely scenario (to me anyway) is that this machine originated with Daniel Higham rather than Thomas Macdonald, who would not have needed to use an 1897 Type A Graphophone as the platform to demonstrate the principle of mechanical amplification. Nor would Macdonald have needed to devise a tandem mainspring different from anything Columbia ever marketed. With the facilities of Bridgeport at his disposal, this model would have been different, I'm sure, in several respects.

Higham lived in Winthrop Highlands, Massachusetts, and filed for what eventually became U.S. patent No.678,566 on April 25, 1901. Although no model was submitted to the U.S. Patent Office, there may well have been one made - - especially if Higham wanted to interest Columbia in manufacturing and selling such a device. Filing in 1901 makes the use of an 1897 Type A far more sensible, and the tinkertoy cabinet becomes simply a suggestive backdrop for the beautifully made mechanism.

I'd spend some time trying to trace a connection between this machine and Daniel Higham.

George P.

Your "Queen" looks and sounds MARVELOUS, Wyatt! How COOL!

Fran

Because this Higham hasn't been rebuilt 100% (it still needs diaphragm gaskets), and because it has obvious wear and usage on it....I don't feel that it is playing up to full potential yet. Interestingly, after my cleaning, the ebonite shoe is wearing into shape against the amber wheel, and it sounds a little better every day.

The Higham reproducers have a background surface hiss from the baseline friction. But when they perform, they are LOUD and very full toned, surprisingly. This unit has good mid-range response, much better than a standard cylinder player. There was a guy making repro amber wheels and ebonite shoes for these years ago, but I have lost his name and last I heard he no longer makes them. I recall installing the parts in a BC for a customer, and the performance was "ok," but not like a good original setup.

FloridaClay wrote:Sounds great! How would you compare its loudness, hearing it in person, with a regular phonograph?

Clay

What a great sounding machine. Thanks for sharing the restoration and theories as to the machine's existence.

I'm curious as to why this machine would have been either made by Columbia (American Graphophone) or even Daniel Highham. Howard Hazelcorn's Guide to Columbia Cylinder Phonographs shows a small version of the Higham setup (even smaller than the BM and more similar to a model BE,) which he calls the BP, which wasn't put into production; so why would there be a need to create an even smaller version? My guess it is it was made by a skilled craftsman, but as to what purpose is unknown.

Scott

I don't have a copy of Howard's book to reference the BP machine. But would appreciate a photo if you have it (private message, as his book is copyrighted). As stated before, the BM had a 3" reproducer, this machine...a 3.5", and the BC a 4". This is not smaller than the BM reproducer. The motor modification confuses me, as there have been 2-spring motors available from other Graphophone models in the date period of 1901-1905, so why modify such an early motor?

I guess my argument as to the machine's authenticity is won when observed and inspected in person. Which those attending the Wayne, NJ phono show will be able to do. I will be bringing some machines just for display, and the usual 4000 pounds of 78rpm records and cylinders to sell.

As far as repairing the cabinet......my gut says NO. It is a testament to its survival. I might do some wood replacement, but this will need to wait until warmer weather. I can only imagine what I would have to do to the new beading to get it to match this machine. Probably stain it, strip it, and leave it in the elements for a month to age..

MicaMonster wrote:I have not worked on a BM before, but I suspect that it has the same 3-shoe system that a BC has, thus making this one even more important to preserve.

Wyatt

The BM has a 1 piece shoe, which actually is a blessing as it will play with almost normal volume if the friction wheel "amplifier" isn't working properly, which is the case with my BM.

The reproducer is 3.25" and diaphragm is 2.75"


Chuck