The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

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

Not in the slightest. Keep digging!

Clay

...And here's another dissenting voice! By all means - keep going!

I've been following this thread with interest and enthusiasm from the first (even before the thread was started!). I think I've even had some email exchanges with the mysterious "J" about this machine. I have nothing against conducting research in public, showing the stages of the discoveries - - as long as no one goes off half-cocked ("Did you see Thomas Macdonald's prototype BC on the Talking Machine Forum?")...

MicaMonster wrote: Here is patent 942,089, and yes, the reproducer is shown on a Type-A carriage tube. The drawing illustrates the exact reproducer mounting position as well.

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

This could be misleading to someone who wasn't really paying attention. It's NOT a Type A carriage nor lift lever. And the drawing is claimed to illustrate "...the exact reproducer mounting position." The coffee is steaming, at least one intelligent reader declares this to be "the clincher," and so poor old George is compelled to play the crotchety old fussbudget...

MicaMonster wrote: Yes, the ridges on the ends of the carriage tube do not match the Type-A tube, but this is also a quality of patent drawings versus machinists blueprints: there will be differences.

Now Wyatt... Bubbola... You know I love you, but we can't have it both ways. The drawing happens to show an exact rendering of the pot metal Graphophone carriage sleeve and lift lever (along with that "...exact reproducer mounting position..."). I note that the trunion screws are not shown, but remember that I'm not reading into this drawing as much as you are, so that's not even an argument I want to make. But if a model was used by the artist to render this drawing, it was clearly not the machine in question.

My view (stated here earlier) has always been that the top works of this machine were not executed by the same people responsible for the cabinet and motor. Yes, American Graphophone had a first-class machine shop, but such shops were pretty commonplace around metropolitan centers back then. And there was nothing to stop Daniel Higham from having one of these shops fabricate that beautiful upper works. The cabinet and motor would be merely a pedestal (and hidden motive power) for the important part: the upper works. I think ruling out a Daniel Higham source for this machine would be a worthwhile endeavor.

I'm being called to dinner, but in short, I heartily encourage what you're doing. I would only ask that new developments be treated as such, and not necessarily as the the Rosetta Stone. I've seen so much writing misinterpreted over the years that I'm gun-shy. Just a doddering old fart-factory who wants to deny everyone their fun!

Best,
George P.

George, your guidance is always valued. This is why two (three, four, five, six..) heads are better than one. You are correct, the drawing is not a Type-A carriage tube, and the lift lever is not either. The drawing shows the reproducer mounting position, and the low position of the mandrel. Ok. I am turning my Conjecture-O-Matic knob down to a level 2....previously it was at a risky level 5. (Level 10.......I'm damned near unapproachable). I have been researching concurrently on Ancestry.com, and am having difficulty linking Higham and Macdonald to Providence, RI, and the Italian family name where this was found to Bridgeport.

As stated earlier on, when the machine was found, the governor was disassembled. The weights were in the bottom of the case, and ALL of the governor spring screws and square washers were wrapped in a piece of newspaper. I took some time to unwrap the piece of newspaper and place it under a piece of glass, with the side I felt was more offering of clues facing UP. My goal here is to try to determine the age of the newspaper, to determine when the machine was essentially put away broken. If it had a broken governor spring, why weren't the remaining 3 springs in the case? No clue.

To make this more interesting, the newspaper is in Italian. I don't speak Italian. The ad on the bottom shows a machine, and the text accompanying it looks to be "AMERICAN IND.P. SHOE MCHY. CO. And they are offering a catalog. Shoe making machinery? In the ad above, typing a few of the phrases into Google Translator bring up partial names of books or plays. "The Story of Two...." and "The Triumph Of..."

There is a name. PIETRO DECOURCELLE. Some google book entries mention of him in Literary and Theatrical journals, from 1894-1907. A playwright? The date ranges loosely fit. Can anybody here read Italian?

Tomorrow work commences on the cabinet, including getting some old oak cut to repair missing trim pieces.

MicaMonster wrote:George, your guidance is always valued. This is why two (three, four, five, six..) heads are better than one.

Well, you know you're always welcome to whatever's rattling around in my head.

It's too bad there's no immediate/obvious link between the Italian family and either Macdonald or Higham. That would have been a real piece of luck. Unfortunately, all it takes is one yard sale or "item left in the house," or "item given away," or even "family moved to a different town" to break the connection between the family and the origin of the machine.

After reading your latest post above, I did a quick patent search from the other direction (deductive rather than inductive tracing) to see if anything might suggest a path from Higham to Providence.

It turns out that Daniel Higham moved around a bit. Here's a quick list of patents granted on phonographic apparatus, in chronological order of when they were filed, and where Higham was living at the time:

No.678,566: filed 4/25/01. Higham living in Winthrop Highlands, Mass.
No.783,750: filed 12/12/04. Higham living in Bridgeport. (Assigned to Highamophone Co.)
No.808,052: filed 6/5/05. Higham living in Bridgeport. (Assigned to Highamophone Co.)
No.876,350: filed 4/16/06. Higham living in Bridgeport.
No.1,036,235: filed 4/17/08. Higham living in E. Orange, N.J.
No.1,034,014: filed 12/15/09. Higham living in New York.

There are a number of patents dealing with sound synchronization to films, but they are later than these... (I'd still like to delve into them. )

Interestingly, Macdonald's patent No.942,089 (whose drawing was illustrated here last night) references Higham's earlier patent No.678,566 (as does Macdonald's patent on the BC mechanism), and shows Macdonald's address as Bridgeport as well. File date on this one was 12/21/04 - - the same time Higham listed his address as Bridgeport.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? I'm not sure - other than the liklihood that Higham and Macdonald were working together by 1904 if not earlier. But we already knew that...

My gut feeling based on the machine's characteristics is that this machine was a demonstration model to a select group of people. A "concept" piece, designed to show what a production model might look like, and to demonstrate what it would sound like. But who was being persuaded? Thomas Macdonald? A committee of Columbia executives? It doesn't seem likely that Daniel Higham needed any coaxing - it was his baby after all.

Many questions...

George P.

The most telling line in that scrap of paper is (my reconstruction) "(U)LTISSIME (NOTI)ZIE DELLA GUERRA" = "Latest War News", which would most probably have been WWI.

Bill

It is great fun for this observer to see one tantalizing clue after another show up. The hunt is almost as fascinating to watch as the results. And this is such a wonderful place for bright minds to work together.

Clay

I'll never use the word "clincher" again, I don't think.

So this machine seems to be looking more and more like something from a model shop?

Fran

FloridaClay wrote:And this is such a wonderful place for bright minds to work together.

Clay

I just hope they'll keep on being patient with me!

fran604g wrote:I'll never use the word "clincher" again, I don't think.

So this machine seems to be looking more and more like something from a model shop?

Fran

Frankly, I wouldn't be dumbstruck to learn the top works (ONLY) had been built at American Graphophone in Bridgeport, but I'd be less surprised if it were the work of a smaller machine shop.

The entire artifact has the earmarks of being a concept piece for someone's consideration.

George P.

Not to get too far off topic, but Wyatt, I wonder if the stanchion that supports the reproducer drive is milled steel, or a casting?

If it is milled steel, that might suggest a purpose-machined part that was made up to be grafted onto an existing top works casting, as opposed to an existing casting being cut down and repurposed. That's one way I would have done such a project in the machine shop as a model maker.

Fran

MicaMonster, whats the serial number?

USlakeside wrote:MicaMonster, whats the serial number?

George P.