The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

You'll get no argument that the modifications to this machine are crude and amateurish. But I encourage you to check out the first link in the OP's initial post. Not much better - and definitely factory. Another example: I have a very early Herzog 2-louver 1A which was probably repaired at the Edison factory (Herzog improperly packed them, and at least one entire carload was rejected as unsaleable by Edison; see The Sound Box, September 2009, page 22). Although the repairs seem to have been confined to the drawer slides and thus not visible, by removing the drawers the repairs are obvious and look like they were done by a Junior High shop student. And, as noted earlier in this thread, on page 224 of Discovering Antique Phonographs, Thomas Edison's personal phonograph is shown. It too was converted from a 1A cabinet into a Disc Phonograph. It's pretty crude - especially considering it was done for T.A.E. personally.

But the most compelling evidence is that data plate. The serial number is 4529. By the time Amberola manufacture reached that number, the factory was 1000 units into 1B production. (The August 29, 1911 date on the data plate also rules out a 1A.) Yet it's HIGHLY unlikely that this early 1910 Pooley cabinet - desperately needed by Edison at the time - was fitted with a 1B mechanism in 1911 - 1912. Far more likely that when this 1A was modified, a blank (non-serialized) 1B data plate was pressed into service with a sequential number for a B 250 Disc Phonograph, and the "B1" marking was overstamped with the B 250 designation - perhaps by hand. My point is that this data plate is NOT original to the cabinet, since it originally housed a 1A mechanism.

Who would have had a blank data plate, gone to all the trouble of effacing the Amberola decal and substituting a later one, refinishing the lid, and even modifying the motorboard braces - - other than the factory?

I'm certainly not suggesting that I know the story behind this machine (I can't explain the post-1917 motor plate). But considering the other similar known examples and the existence of the data plate with its inherent logic, the possibility of this being a factory modification should not be dismissed out of hand - despite the carelessness with which it was done.

Just my opinion!

George P.

The crude workmanship does not convince me this is a later cobble job, especially the re-stamped data plate. There have been other similar examples of half Amberola half DD machines presented here.

Among them, on this link of a few years back I presented an A-300 that most certainly started out as an Amberola 1A. It's the same cabinet, same cloven hoof feet. Perhaps the rework was a little better done but after all they were reworking a $300 Circassian walnut machine in this instance.

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... ?f=2&t=537

Valecnik wrote:The crude workmanship does not convince me this is a later cobble job, especially the re-stamped data plate. There have been other similar examples of half Amberola half DD machines presented here.

Among them, on this link of a few years back I presented an A-300 that most certainly started out as an Amberola 1A. It's the same cabinet, same cloven hoof feet. Perhaps the rework was a little better done but after all they were reworking a $300 Circassian walnut machine in this instance.

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... ?f=2&t=537

I see you have 49.5h. I believe it is safe to assume that that is WITH the lid. Fran has been asking for the height of the cabinet w/out the lid, which is 43 ½" on this particular model. Correct?

Also here is the thread with the article on the Cabinets (part 3)for easier access. http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... s&start=10

Thanks again for all of your input

DGPros wrote:

Valecnik wrote:The crude workmanship does not convince me this is a later cobble job, especially the re-stamped data plate. There have been other similar examples of half Amberola half DD machines presented here.

Among them, on this link of a few years back I presented an A-300 that most certainly started out as an Amberola 1A. It's the same cabinet, same cloven hoof feet. Perhaps the rework was a little better done but after all they were reworking a $300 Circassian walnut machine in this instance.

http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... ?f=2&t=537

I see you have 49.5h. I believe it is safe to assume that that is WITH the lid. Fran has been asking for the height of the cabinet w/out the lid, which is 43 ½" on this particular model. Correct?

Also here is the thread with the article on the Cabinets (part 3)for easier access. http://forum.talkingmachine.info/viewto ... s&start=10

Thanks again for all of your input

I don't have access to it right now so I cannot take the measurement but it's a good two inches shorter. It sets between an Amberola 1B and a later A-250. It's the same height as the 1B and shorter than the later A-250. Hope that helps.

Here is what's left of the grill. I'm thinking I'll need a replacement rather than piecing it back together.

DGPros wrote:Here is what's left of the grill. I'm thinking I'll need a replacement rather than piecing it back together.

Oh, come on - - show some initiative!

George P.

phonogfp wrote:

DGPros wrote:Here is what's left of the grill. I'm thinking I'll need a replacement rather than piecing it back together.

Oh, come on - - show some initiative!

George P.

I'll see what I can do

Well, i figured i needed to update my latest find. After rallying around 7 Saturday night, I went to a Christmas party. On the way home Kim(my girlfriend) asked to see this lid. (Yes, i talked incessantly about this and many other phonographs. She listens patiently as I do when she talks about her dollhouse that she is building. It's actually quite impressive ) Well, the lighting was much more subdued and at the correct angle,she noticed a smoothness and less crazing in a certain area of the lid. It's tough to see in the pictures, but i can't help but see it now. It's about 5" by 3 ½". I believe after a few cleanings and a new (and younger) set of eyes, it most definitely is the area where the emblem used to reside. I am 99% sure now that the emblem has been removed, and of course, the Edison lettering added, as it sits on top of the shellac.



PS At the Christmas party, gag gifts were given out by Santa(the host) Kim received earmuffs to "Drown out my voice when I start going on about my latest phonograph".

phonogfp wrote:You'll get no argument that the modifications to this machine are crude and amateurish. But I encourage you to check out the first link in the OP's initial post. Not much better - and definitely factory. Another example: I have a very early Herzog 2-louver 1A which was probably repaired at the Edison factory (Herzog improperly packed them, and at least one entire carload was rejected as unsaleable by Edison; see The Sound Box, September 2009, page 22). Although the repairs seem to have been confined to the drawer slides and thus not visible, by removing the drawers the repairs are obvious and look like they were done by a Junior High shop student. And, as noted earlier in this thread, on page 224 of Discovering Antique Phonographs, Thomas Edison's personal phonograph is shown. It too was converted from a 1A cabinet into a Disc Phonograph. It's pretty crude - especially considering it was done for T.A.E. personally.

But the most compelling evidence is that data plate. The serial number is 4529. By the time Amberola manufacture reached that number, the factory was 1000 units into 1B production. (The August 29, 1911 date on the data plate also rules out a 1A.) Yet it's HIGHLY unlikely that this early 1910 Pooley cabinet - desperately needed by Edison at the time - was fitted with a 1B mechanism in 1911 - 1912. Far more likely that when this 1A was modified, a blank (non-serialized) 1B data plate was pressed into service with a sequential number for a B 250 Disc Phonograph, and the "B1" marking was overstamped with the B 250 designation - perhaps by hand. My point is that this data plate is NOT original to the cabinet, since it originally housed a 1A mechanism.

Who would have had a blank data plate, gone to all the trouble of effacing the Amberola decal and substituting a later one, refinishing the lid, and even modifying the motorboard braces - - other than the factory?

I'm certainly not suggesting that I know the story behind this machine (I can't explain the post-1917 motor plate). But considering the other similar known examples and the existence of the data plate with its inherent logic, the possibility of this being a factory modification should not be dismissed out of hand - despite the carelessness with which it was done.

Just my opinion!

George P.

George,

You state, "...since it originally housed a 1A mechanism."

Do you think it actually had a 1A mechanism installed in it, or was it simply an empty cabinet, originally designed to house a 1A, but converted before a 1A was actually installed? Just seems odd to me that the factory, (and I do believe it's a factory job), would disassemble and convert an existing & complete 1A.

JerryVan wrote:
George,

You state, "...since it originally housed a 1A mechanism."

Do you think it actually had a 1A mechanism installed in it, or was it simply an empty cabinet, originally designed to house a 1A, but converted before a 1A was actually installed? Just seems odd to me that the factory, (and I do believe it's a factory job), would disassemble and convert an existing & complete 1A.

Jerry, I agree that it's highly unlikely that anyone would remove the Amberola mechanism to convert the cabinet to a Disc Phonograph. Still, the presence of those extra holes suggest that an Amberola mechanism once resided in that cabinet. Even the filled crank hole looks right for an Amberola. As Sherlock Holmes stated several times, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

As to the "why," I'm baffled. It would make more sense if this had been an empty cabinet pressed into service for a disc mechanism.

Now this is pure speculation, but I suppose an Edison customer might have become tired of his Amberola and wanted one of the new Edison Disc Phonographs. Of course, these weren't cheap, so he had his dealer/factory do the modifications to his old cabinet. That might have resulted in the "semi-professional" job performed on this early Pooley cabinet. It wouldn't entirely explain why the new data plate was supplied, but perhaps Edison didn't release entire mechanisms without a corresponding serial number. Whatever the story, it was certainly an unusual event.

George P.

phonogfp wrote:

JerryVan wrote:
George,

You state, "...since it originally housed a 1A mechanism."

Do you think it actually had a 1A mechanism installed in it, or was it simply an empty cabinet, originally designed to house a 1A, but converted before a 1A was actually installed? Just seems odd to me that the factory, (and I do believe it's a factory job), would disassemble and convert an existing & complete 1A.

Jerry, I agree that it's highly unlikely that anyone would remove the Amberola mechanism to convert the cabinet to a Disc Phonograph. Still, the presence of those extra holes suggest that an Amberola mechanism once resided in that cabinet. Even the filled crank hole looks right for an Amberola. As Sherlock Holmes stated several times, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

As to the "why," I'm baffled. It would make more sense if this had been an empty cabinet pressed into service for a disc mechanism.

Now this is pure speculation, but I suppose an Edison customer might have become tired of his Amberola and wanted one of the new Edison Disc Phonographs. Of course, these weren't cheap, so he had his dealer/factory do the modifications to his old cabinet. That might have resulted in the "semi-professional" job performed on this early Pooley cabinet. It wouldn't entirely explain why the new data plate was supplied, but perhaps Edison didn't release entire mechanisms without a corresponding serial number. Whatever the story, it was certainly an unusual event.

George P.

I was thinking that the extra "1A" holes may have been for the brackets that would support a 1A mech, but never had a 1A placed upon them. Meaning, an "empty cabinet" would still house those brackets, (or the pre-drilled holes for same), and would be pre-drilled for the crank hole. The holes for the cylinder holding clips also show no evidence, (impressions in the wood), of clips having been installed. Not trying to be argumentative, I just love a mystery! As you suggest, it's all speculation. Thanks!