The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Wyatt, this thread was very entertaining indeed. I love your tales of restoration
JRT.

This patent confirms Henry Seymour's observation that the speed of the amber wheel didn't matter. He removed the drive gear & added a small crank, and found he could turn it very slowly & still get the same amplification. He also constructed a gramophone version.

https://www.google.com/patents/US920324 ... BDoAQgjMAE

For those following this thread, do recall the photos I posted earlier on of my machine pictured next to the Feb 15, 1905 patent drawings (796,743) which show from the side perspective the Higham reproducer mounted on what is essentially a Type-A (edit March 8: "Type-A/AT style) carriage tube (with the support guide UNDER the tube, and not angled back like the BC). In the front perspective drawing of the carriage it resembled a slightly later production example, with the reproducer body integrated into the carriage tube casting. This has been one of my personal hurdles in validating this machine, as the reproducer is not integral to the carriage tube casting.

PROGRESS!

Tonight, I found another drawing. This one filed less than 2 months BEFORE 796,743. Here is patent 942,089, and yes, the reproducer is shown on a Type-A (edit March 8: "Type A/AT style) carriage tube (with the support guide UNDER the tube, and not angled back like the BC). The drawing illustrates the exact reproducer mounting position as well.

Now I can sleep tonight.....some!

The hunt can be really fascinating and addictive. Congratulations!

Thanks for this thread. Hope you will turn it into an article someday.

Clay

Very nice, Wyatt! That looks like the "clincher". How neat that you could locate T.H Macdonald's patent drawing of this very interesting mutation!

I'm looking forward to any other developments you (may) discover.

Fran

I can't for the life of me determine how this is supposed to work (and I come from a long line of engineers). Anybody care to explain?

I don't want to be a party-pooper, but the most recent patent drawing posted above accompanies an application filed in December 1904 - - only 4 months before the introduction of the Type BC. Three and a half years after Higham filed (on April 25, 1901) for what eventually became U.S. patent No.678,566. Six and a half years after American Graphophone was manufacturing twin mainsprings in a barrel. And about seven years after this Type A (No.69409) left the factory. There's a serial number on that Type A and it fits into regular Type A production. That's an important point.

At first glance, the patent drawing just posted does look remarkably similar to the existing machine. But note that the drawing does NOT depict a "Type A carriage tube," but a later, pot metal variety as found on ATs, AOs, and AZs. The lift lever is also the later design consistent with these later machines. However, I don't consider this late 1904 patent drawing relevant to the machine in question anyway. My perspective is on page 3 of this thread, so I won't belabor it.

I'm as eager as anyone to know the story behind this interesting machine. However, the story - whatever it turns out to be - needs to make sense from several perspectives. It also should take into account all the clues of its origin, without ignoring any. There should be no "rush" to offer an account of this machine's origin; I'd rather wait months (years if necessary) to learn the true story rather than eventually "unlearn" what might amount to a widely-accepted theory. Personally, I think this machine is worth the effort and the wait.

George P.

George,

You bring an interesting point concerning the carriage tube. The tube itself is brass, not pot metal, yet the reproducer mounting holes are higher than what I have observed on my Washington Type-A. Given the observable fact that this machine was purpose built, the holes could be drilled anywhere necessary to accomodate the reproducer mounting. Yes, the ridges on the ends of fthe carriage tube do not match the Type-A tube.

Posting the last patent drawing only accomplished one thing for me: justifying the way the reproducer is mounted to the carriage tube as something that was thought out, and put on paper. Gauging the timing of the patent filing is anybody's guess. Litigation? Patent app for 796,743 was Feb 16, 05, and patented Aug 8, 05. Roughtly 6 months later. Patent app for 942,089 was Dec 21, 04, and patended Dec 7, 09...almost FIVE YEARS later. (????). I have no idea why, and have no explanation for this.

I'll hit you with another mystery: The 1904 (St. Louis) Louisiana Purchase Exposition closed Dec 1, 1904. A Higham amplified "Loud Speaking" Graphophone was demonstrated at the Columbia pavilion that had a 6" mandrel.....you would think this was a BC, right?

I hear what you are putting down. Believe me, I do. The More refined BC did appear shortly after, but why would this be patented sooooo late?

I have been having several discussions with fellow collectors about this machine, and a few thoughts did come up;

1. Conversation with J lead to the following thoughts and ideas: The quality of workmanship on the topworks is really 2nd to none...it reflects the work of a highly skilled machinist with access to a world class machine shop that was fully equipped for executing a high quality model. THE MOTOR, however, isn't as elegantly done. The motor is an antiquated design that was simply modified to dual-spring, something that ALREADY EXISTED in a Graphophone of the 1904 period. The spring barrel is composed of what looks to be steel, and isn't of the same quality as the topworks. It has been suggested and I am pushed to believe that the top works and motor/cabinet were done by separate parties. Columbia's engineers were too talented for this simple and dare I say "hastey" modification of an underpowered motor. I observe tool marks in the area where the 2nd spring stanchion was removed.....a proper factory job would have involved milling the area down, leaving behind a smooth surface with machining marks. I have yet to explore the spring barrel to determine if it has TWO springs in it, or ONE really thick and wide spring. This had to be done to develop more torque to operate the top works, and to achieve enough play time.

2. Further thoughts and ideas: The motor and cabinet were most likely made up by a third party to give the top works something to operate on, after the top works were no longer deemed viable. I am leaning this way because the cabinet construction is really amateur. The lid was cut back, then extension pieces were glued on, and trims attached with simple brad nails. The motor and cabinet modifications do not reflect the quality that Columbia's workshops would put out. The presence of a 4" mandrel suggests that this development happened before the development of 6" records. And it could have been the original design for the production machine before the development of 6" cylinders. I don't feel that this was a lightweight alternative, just the fore-runner. Again, only thoughts.

TO ALL: I know that my excitement and enthusiasm is pretty nauseating, but this is how I get excited. YES, I could do all of this research on the side, and present everything in a well written published article. BUT, this is not who I am. By posting to this forum I am allowing others to offer their perspectives in a near-real-time fashion, which is a perfect mesh with the way I think . It turns into a collaborative effort. And, it may even form some sort of entertainment, and hopefully some sort of sensible conclusion beyond that of a hypothesis and a sock-full of conjecture. It isn't proper research, and it isn't formal. But I'm sharing it with people who are passionate about the hobby, and the winter is long and cold. TO ALL: Thank You for your continued interest, suggestions, phone calls, emails, and oodles of great conversations. In the process I have made a new acquaintance in the hobby, and started gears turning in my head that have been long dormant.

"I know that my excitement and enthusiasm is pretty nauseating"

Not in the slightest. Keep digging!

Clay

FloridaClay wrote:"I know that my excitement and enthusiasm is pretty nauseating"

Not in the slightest.

Clay

Ditto, and to have George, "J", and "P" (whom I have no idea of their actual names) all involved, makes this already very "riveting" conversation even more engrossing!

Fran