What is it???? Real or Frankenphone?

[Steve]

May I suggest that you stop clutching at straws and take a look at these.
You may recognise the initials on the front cover. You may even remember his wise words in another thread "Why would it be a fake?"

Yes, of course I know Christopher and I'm aware this sold previously in the early 70's, but what does that prove exactly? Some Frankenphones have been passed through more than one sale. As to the question, "why", I recall saying at the time, it obviously wasn't a fake made to fool anyone per se, but might conceivably have been a cobbled together machine, made by someone in the past with the wine cooler box and Deccalian innards, from a machine which could have been damaged. Who knows but stranger things have been seen.

Anyway, better not to continue and derail this thread which was not about your Deccalian.

[CarlosV]

Yes, of course I know Christopher and I'm aware this sold previously in the early 70's, but what does that prove exactly? Some Frankenphones have been passed through more than one sale. As to the question, "why", I recall saying at the time, it obviously wasn't a fake made to fool anyone per se, but might conceivably have been a cobbled together machine, made by someone in the past with the wine cooler box and Deccalian innards, from a machine which could have been damaged. Who knows but stranger things have been seen.

Having seen it in person, I can say that it looks perfectly genuine, with no hint of alterations, chronological discrepancies, refittings or modifications that are normally visible in frankenphones, including the one that started this thread. The statement of the Decca executive descendant lends credence to its origins, but I agree that these one-off machines always carry some uncertainty concerning their provenance. However it sounds credible - and likely - to me that it is either a prototype that failed to pass into production, or a one-off made-to-order item assembled in a factory. I would certainly like to have it in my collection if I were a completist of Deccalian machines.

[Steve]

Yes, of course I know Christopher and I'm aware this sold previously in the early 70's, but what does that prove exactly? Some Frankenphones have been passed through more than one sale. As to the question, "why", I recall saying at the time, it obviously wasn't a fake made to fool anyone per se, but might conceivably have been a cobbled together machine, made by someone in the past with the wine cooler box and Deccalian innards, from a machine which could have been damaged. Who knows but stranger things have been seen.

Having seen it in person, I can say that it looks perfectly genuine, with no hint of alterations, chronological discrepancies, refittings or modifications that are normally visible in frankenphones, including the one that started this thread. The statement of the Decca executive descendant lends credence to its origins, but I agree that these one-off machines always carry some uncertainty concerning their provenance. However it sounds credible - and likely - to me that it is either a prototype that failed to pass into production, or a one-off made-to-order item assembled in a factory. I would certainly like to have it in my collection if I were a completist of Deccalian machines.

Thank you so much, Carlos, for sharing your opinion having had the privilege of seeing it in the flesh first hand. Like other members here I haven't seen it apart from in photos which were very poorly presented by the auctioneers.

Perhaps you can kindly throw some light on the question I have raised several times and which Roger has declined to respond to: do the lid panels either side of the dulciflex match the rest of it in terms of colour?

The photos I saw made them look much lighter. The thing which is slightly odd about it is the fact that the original Deccalian design was square in proportion and not rectangular, hence the dulciflex is located centrally in a square lid without any "infill" or redundant space on either side. The motorboard (from memory) is also square and normally sits neatly inside the lower case section. If I recall, in the Wine Cooler version, the same square motorboard is used - let's call it the "standard" type - but it does not fit perfectly within the rectangular cabinet without a picture frame around it. This frame is uneven in dimension on each side with a very thin strip along the front edge, which is a detail I didn't think looked right.

I do wonder if it was created as a prototype as you suggest and then a "production version" would have ironed out or made neater, some of these anomalies. However, it appears they didn't make any more.......that is until another one turns up in 2074.

[CarlosV]

Perhaps you can kindly throw some light on the question I have raised several times and which Roger has declined to respond to: do the lid panels either side of the dulciflex match the rest of it in terms of colour?

The photos I saw made them look much lighter. The thing which is slightly odd about it is the fact that the original Deccalian design was square in proportion and not rectangular, hence the dulciflex is located centrally in a square lid without any "infill" or redundant space on either side. The motorboard (from memory) is also square and normally sits neatly inside the lower case section. If I recall, in the Wine Cooler version, the same square motorboard is used - let's call it the "standard" type - but it does not fit perfectly within the rectangular cabinet without a picture frame around it. This frame is uneven in dimension on each side with a very thin strip along the front edge, which is a detail I didn't think looked right.

I do wonder if it was created as a prototype as you suggest and then a "production version" would have ironed out or made neater, some of these anomalies. However, it appears they didn't make any more.......that is until another one turns up in 2074.

Steve, the lid panels match the rest of the body both in terms of fitting and finish/colour, including the effects of time - inside and outside. The machine is in excellent condition and does not show significant signs of weather-induced changes like exposure to the sun, no flowerpot residues etc. As to the fitting of the square motorboard in the rectangular box, it may have been an adaptation of an existing design, but it is apparent that it was done in an industrial way, colours are uniform, clearly it is not a handicraft. This machine makes me think of a similar adaptation made by the Gramophone Co to make the model 511, to fit the standard tonearms in the leftover Lumière 510 boxes - the evolution can be seen in the adaptation, that started using the existing motorboard in the earlier ones and then moved on to a bespoke one. And I agree that the shadow of a doubt will remain until another one shows up, or specific factory documentation emerges.

[Steve]

Perhaps you can kindly throw some light on the question I have raised several times and which Roger has declined to respond to: do the lid panels either side of the dulciflex match the rest of it in terms of colour?

The photos I saw made them look much lighter. The thing which is slightly odd about it is the fact that the original Deccalian design was square in proportion and not rectangular, hence the dulciflex is located centrally in a square lid without any "infill" or redundant space on either side. The motorboard (from memory) is also square and normally sits neatly inside the lower case section. If I recall, in the Wine Cooler version, the same square motorboard is used - let's call it the "standard" type - but it does not fit perfectly within the rectangular cabinet without a picture frame around it. This frame is uneven in dimension on each side with a very thin strip along the front edge, which is a detail I didn't think looked right.

I do wonder if it was created as a prototype as you suggest and then a "production version" would have ironed out or made neater, some of these anomalies. However, it appears they didn't make any more.......that is until another one turns up in 2074.

Steve, the lid panels match the rest of the body both in terms of fitting and finish/colour, including the effects of time - inside and outside. The machine is in excellent condition and does not show significant signs of weather-induced changes like exposure to the sun, no flowerpot residues etc. As to the fitting of the square motorboard in the rectangular box, it may have been an adaptation of an existing design, but it is apparent that it was done in an industrial way, colours are uniform, clearly it is not a handicraft. This machine makes me think of a similar adaptation made by the Gramophone Co to make the model 511, to fit the standard tonearms in the leftover Lumière 510 boxes - the evolution can be seen in the adaptation, that started using the existing motorboard in the earlier ones and then moved on to a bespoke one. And I agree that the shadow of a doubt will remain until another one shows up, or specific factory documentation emerges.

Thanks again, Carlos, that is most useful to know. In terms of the 510/511, I do like the 510 motorboard arrangement with its unbroken flush surface but have to admit that you can't better the late 511 arrangement for convenience (of removal).

[Homestead]

Wow.....just wow. Sold this morning for 2300.00. someone thought it was special!!

[Raphael]

Wow.....just wow. Sold this morning for 2300.00. someone thought it was special!!

IF you believe it. Live Auctioneers is rampant with phony bidding wars. Don’t be surprised if it turns up for auction again in the near future.

Raphael