The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

phonogfp wrote:Crikey... Even the same page numbers. It would appear that the price was arbitrarily changed with no alteration of the machine.

I'm going to guess that $105.00 was the original price, then it was lowered to $100.00. Otherwise, it would have started at $100.00, been raised to $105.00, then dropped back to $100.00. That seems unlikely, but who can tell?

George P.

phonogfp wrote:With the prices higher on each machine, it really begins to look like a "west of the Rockies" price difference.

Your $105.00 Victor VI may have come from New York to you, but unless there's a solid provenance for the machine for its entire life, there's no telling where it was originally purchased.

I've learned a lot today - thanks!

George P.

EarlH wrote:That re-sale label is kind of interesting. My Dad's step grandmother owned the Victor dealership here in the town I live in and her son Bill lived to be almost 100 and died in the 1980's. Bill told me that his mother RARELY sold a machine they took in on trade and that Victor really didn't like them doing that anyway. It made much more sense to sell something new rather than flood the market with used stuff. They also had pretty tight licensing agreements before that lawsuit in 1917 and so I suppose that's where some of this stuff fits in. Dad and Bill both would laugh about all the record players they took in on trade once radio got going big.

My Dad said when he was a kid he helped bust up the cabinets and put them in the furnace to heat the store with and all the brass & iron went to the junk yard. Maybe that thing was sent back to the factory to be re-conditioned. Estey did that with organs. Bill told me that they did that sometimes with a decent chapel organ that came in on trade. It makes sense with the higher end stuff that they might do that. If they had the money to buy a VI they probably had the money to get a XVI when they decided they wanted to upgrade. And your machine wasn't very old it looks like, when that happened.

gramophone78 wrote:
So, in order to make this now used machine attractive and up to date enough to sell..... the paper mache horn, #10 sound box were replaced with a wood spear tip, exhibition sound box and a light polishing and given a $100 price tag.

phonogfp wrote:

gramophone78 wrote:
So, in order to make this now used machine attractive and up to date enough to sell..... the paper mache horn, #10 sound box were replaced with a wood spear tip, exhibition sound box and a light polishing and given a $100 price tag.

I don't want to beat this horse dead, but that's not what the Second Hand License says. The VTMCo. would have had no problem with the dealer selling the Victor VI for the then-current $100.00 price. But the Second Hand License allowed the dealer "...to sell said machine at a less price than above noted." Victor didn't care what the dealer sold the second-hand machine for, but stipulated that the dealer could not advertise it. Consult Bob Baumbach's books again and see what he says about this.

George P.

gramophone78 wrote:Well, George & Stephan......this gets interesting now..... . No, I did not photo shop this... .

Undated Victor Catalog.gif

Starkton wrote:

gramophone78 wrote:Well, George & Stephan......this gets interesting now..... . No, I did not photo shop this... .

Undated Victor Catalog.gif

Great source, which provides much for us to learn! We can derive from this that your machine had a Japanese horn and was really called "Improved Victor VI" at the beginning. You must now withdraw the claim that the price tag of $105 only refers to machines equipped with the Victor No. 10 sound box.

With reference to the serial number, noted on the second hand license, I am surprised that Victor delivered at least 1643 Victor VI in the first few weeks!

gramophone78 wrote: How can anyone do that when we have no date to go by...??. We still don't know if there is an earlier catalog or whether the price was raised or lowered during these catalog's.