Expert All-Range at Harewood House

[JerryVan]

I can definitely say that there is a conservative museum mindset in which conservation of an artifact as is trumps any restoration to a functional state.

Also in this museum mindset, the use of artifacts is generally forbidden, unless they are common, disposable, and replaceable.

I can see some wise reasoning for this. Restoration very often involves the removal or alteration of an original part, surface, or finish. For example, let's say a chunk of wood has been broken off of the corner of a phonograph cabinet base molding. To repair/restore it, you would possibly even out the fractured surface to prepare it for gluing a new piece of wood. This will entail the further removal of original wood and surface finish. When the new wood piece is glued in place, (incorporating an unoriginal wood joint), it will then need to dressed down and shaped to match the original molding form, which will necessitate further removal of original finish when blending the new & old molding. Staining and finishing the new piece will add an unoriginal, refinished section to the cabinet. When it's all done, it may look fantastic, but when you consider what's left of the original piece, there is less there than what you started with. There's also the question of what level of workmanship can the museum expect from a given restorer.

I realize I'm stating here what a lot of us already know. However, I often find it necessary to remind myself of this mindset when seeing a damaged object on display or when I purchase a less that perfect example of a particular item. The "fixer" in me sometimes needs taming. Still, I think we do our best to preserve the history of these machines by returning them to function.

[gramophone-georg]

Sometimes conservation is possible, but to me, an expired finish, worn plating, paint, and rust/ corrosion have nothing to do with "originality".

[epigramophone]

Irrespective of what the conservators at Harewood House may say about cosmetic restoration, there can be no excuse for refusing to have the machine put into good playing order. Overhauling the motor and soundbox, if necessary, will not compromise originality.

[Steve]

Irrespective of what the conservators at Harewood House may say about cosmetic restoration, there can be no excuse for refusing to have the machine put into good playing order. Overhauling the motor and soundbox, if necessary, will not compromise originality.

It sounds similar to the National Trust approach, and no, I don't agree with it.

[Steve]

If I haven't already said it years ago, I'd just like to confirm that my pedestal Senior Model does not have the separate angle bracket to support the horn conduit at the rear. According to Frank James it is a 1930 example, owned by Edward Creese, Senior, who made and tuned soundboxes for Expert. The back bracket has the single piece casting which both bolts to the cabinet and has the integrated conduit exiting the back without the hole through cabinet being exposed. In my humble opinion this must be the later "improved" design as it is clearly both a practical and aesthetic advance over the earlier arrangement.

[An Balores]

Steve - all I can say is that my Expert Senior has the integral one-piece back bracket bolted to the cabinet, like yours, but it does not have the tonearm support clip on the motorboard that I have seen on others. At the back of the motorboard there is a plaque which reads:

Established 1920
Registered EM Ginn Trademark (the E M Ginn is a facsimile of, presumably, Ginn's signature)
55, Rathbone Place Oxford St. W1

So it predates the move to Soho Square in 1933 but I can't be more precise about its date. I guess there were a lot of small variations in the models over time.