mutual phonograph company

[bobsled48]

more

[phonogfp]

Really great group of documents. Fantastic to see them all together.

From when dates the Chicago Talking Machine catalogue which is indeed the most interesting in the lot so far.

The Type N would date the catalog no earlier than September 1895, while the absence of the Type A (at least in the pages shown) suggests no later than [corrected] December 1896.

What a great catalog! Are there pages showing the Type U, C, R, I, and K? Does it advertise the aluminum motor?

Thanks again for posting these, Bob! Just wonderful - -

George P.

[Starkton]

The Type N would date the catalog no earlier than September 1895, while the absence of the Type A (at least in the pages shown) suggests no later than August 1896.

Yes, this makes sense but I would think that "Type N" didn't reach the market before November 1895, and "Type A" was introduced only in December 1896.

In this connection a long held matter of concern comes to my mind: It is established practice among collectors to name these two models after types, but I cannot remember to have seen this designation in contemporary catalogues. Instead "Type N" is (mostly) named "Bijou" and "Type A" is named "Columbia". Wouldn't it be better to reestablish the old catchy trade names? What do you think?

Below is a very interesting early ad from a German paper of June 1896. It proves that the Chicago Talking Machine Co. exported phonographs and graphophones at this early date and built up a local trading network, making businesses of German manufacturers increasingly difficult.

Phonographe [sic] - Graphophone
It Talks
Only 170 Mark.
Talking-Machines
reproduce
Singing, Military Music
Orchestra as well as your
Own Voice.
Ask for catalogues.
Agents wanted.

[170 Mark converts into something like $42.50.]

[Lenoirstreetguy]

These are fascinating. The pyramidal phonograph stand is like nothing I've seen before!
Many thanks for posting these.

Jim

[Phototone]

some from inside the pamphlets

That Phonograph/Graphophone ad page is very interesting.
They are saying it is a combination of Phonograph (Edison) and
Graphophone (Columbia) parts to make the best unit.

However, I don't see anything resembling Edison at all on it.
The Gutta Percha reproducer is Columbia, the upper works are
Columbia, the cabinet is Colubia and the Crank and speed control
knob look Columbia.

Also, I think it is very interesting that this company seemed to
do just about everything they could do in phonograph marketing
within the bounds of not infringing patents. All their unique
stuff is either accessories (shaver, Polyphone conversions), or
cabinetry.

[phonogfp]

Yes, this makes sense but I would think that "Type N" didn't reach the market before November 1895, and "Type A" was introduced only in December 1896.

In this connection a long held matter of concern comes to my mind: It is established practice among collectors to name these two models after types, but I cannot remember to have seen this designation in contemporary catalogues. Instead "Type N" is (mostly) named "Bijou" and "Type A" is named "Columbia". Wouldn't it be better to reestablish the old catchy trade names? What do you think?

I have copies of a flyer advertising the Type N at retail, with a half-tone photo of the production model. This flyer was mailed in early [corrected] October 1895 (the original envelope is still with it). From this I infer that the Type N was ready for shipment in September 1895.

I really thought I had found an ad for the Type A that predated December 1896, but I can't find it, so I must bow to you on that one: The Ladies Home Journal of December 1896 cites a $25 Graphophone (the Type A), but the October issue mentions only a $40 machine. Corrected again!

As for the use of types versus trade names, I too like the latter. Unfortunately, the "Bijou" nomenclature was used not only for the Type N, but also for the Type AN. The name "Columbia" was used not only for the A, but also for the AT. There may be others that don't occur to me at the moment. For this reason, I prefer the types as being more precise and less apt to be confused.

[Starkton]

However, I don't see anything resembling Edison at all on it.

You forgot the tapered mandrel, the cylinder of solid wax and the sapphire stylus. This was Edison's share.

[bobsled48]

Anyone familiar with the "Boswell" records mentioned in the literature? Bob Smock

[phonogfp]

However, I don't see anything resembling Edison at all on it.

You forgot the tapered mandrel, the cylinder of solid wax and the sapphire stylus. This was Edison's share.

I agree, and I think that Phototone may be taking the ad copy too literally:

"That Phonograph/Graphophone ad page is very interesting.
They are saying it is a combination of Phonograph (Edison) and
Graphophone (Columbia) parts to make the best unit."

As Starkton points out, certain patented features of both machines were incorporated in the Type N. This doesn't mean that the factory was taking actual parts from both machines and combining them. (The Type N playing mechanism was patented by Thomas Macdonald.) The trade had been clamoring for a machine that combined the best features of Phonographs and Graphophones since the first convention of the Local Phonograph Companies in May 1890, and repeated annually for several years.

During the North American Phonograph Company era, Edison's machine was known as the Phonograph, while American Graphophone's machine was known as the Phonograph-Graphophone. This nomenclature, while seeming odd to us, was well-established to talking machine jobbers and retailers in the early-mid 1890s. It's helpful to put yourself back into the context of that time. To call the new Columbia machine the Phonograph-Graphophone lent some legitimacy to the product, reinforcing the fact that it was built in the same factory, by the same workmen who had built earlier Graphophones for the North American Phonograph Company. No fly-by-night operation involved here. And in 1895-96, when this Chicago Talking Machine Company was published, Edison was just getting back into selling Phonographs after the dust settled from the collapse of North American. For the Graphophone to call its product a Phonograph-Graphophone, it suggested a collaboration (which didn't really exist) couched in what was then a familiar term. Smart marketing, but it didn't last long.

George P.

[Phototone]

However, I don't see anything resembling Edison at all on it.

You forgot the tapered mandrel, the cylinder of solid wax and the sapphire stylus. This was Edison's share.

I thought -by this point- those "improvements" were already present on some Columbia models, and the illustrated "cut"
shown in the catalog, the Banner on the front of the machine clearly says "Phonograph-Graphophone". Something
I hardly expect Columbia to do.