The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

AllenKoe wrote:One cannot rely on Bayly and Kinnear for such verification. They are very confused about Zonophone history, sad to say.

I know your opinion from a review, but after crosschecking with other sources, I only share your views about this book to a lesser extent. It is especially sad that Bayly and Kinnear don't correctly cite their sources.

Are you saying that the full text of the Nov 4, 1899 Owen letter to Johnson ('the Zonophone has arrived') appears on p. 60 of Martland's newest book?

No, just parts of it.

phonogfp wrote: No doubt the Berliner "Improved Gramophone" could have been copied, but such a flagrant violation of Johnson's patent would have surely resulted in immediate litigation. I'm not aware of Berliner or Johnson ever accusing Seaman, National, or Universal of violating Johnson's motor/governor patent; only Berliner's 1895 patent (No.534543) on a stylus driven by the record groove. I'd like to be educated on this point if such litigation documentation exists.

I cited this earlier in the discussion:
“Gramophone Litigation. – Suit to Restrain the National Corporation from the Use of the Word “Gramophone.” – The Berliner Gramophone Company, of Philadelphia, and the United States Gramophone Company, of Washington, have just filed a bill in equity in the United States Circuit Court [...]. [S]ince October, 1899, Frank Seaman has not ordered [...] any gramophones, and that the National Gramophone Corporation since that date has been selling to the public talking machines which infringe the Berliner Gramophone patents, manufactured by the Universal Talking Machine Company, and styled “Zonophones.” [...] The Berliner Gramophone Company complains that the National Gramophone Corporation has been using the word gramophone in its corporate title and in its advertisements, and is deceiving and misleading the public into the belief that the company is [selling gramophones] [...].” (11 June 1900 New York Tribune, New York, Vol. LX, Nr. 19,566, p. 11)

has been selling to the public talking machines which infringe the Berliner Gramophone patents, manufactured by the Universal Talking Machine Company, and styled “Zonophones.”

Perhaps there was some "confusion" about what "selling" meant in this excerpt - perhaps it referred to advertising (rather than actual delivery).

With your skills in finding old newspaper and magazine articles, you should be able to find a detailed ad (in real time), with the efforts of Frank Seaman to "sell" machines between Oct 1899 and March 1900. Do you have any such examples?

I never "reviewed" the Bayly/Kinnear book.

Allen

Starkton wrote:

phonogfp wrote: No doubt the Berliner "Improved Gramophone" could have been copied, but such a flagrant violation of Johnson's patent would have surely resulted in immediate litigation. I'm not aware of Berliner or Johnson ever accusing Seaman, National, or Universal of violating Johnson's motor/governor patent; only Berliner's 1895 patent (No.534543) on a stylus driven by the record groove. I'd like to be educated on this point if such litigation documentation exists.

I cited this earlier in the discussion:
“Gramophone Litigation. – Suit to Restrain the National Corporation from the Use of the Word “Gramophone.” – The Berliner Gramophone Company, of Philadelphia, and the United States Gramophone Company, of Washington, have just filed a bill in equity in the United States Circuit Court [...]. [S]ince October, 1899, Frank Seaman has not ordered [...] any gramophones, and that the National Gramophone Corporation since that date has been selling to the public talking machines which infringe the Berliner Gramophone patents, manufactured by the Universal Talking Machine Company, and styled “Zonophones.” [...] The Berliner Gramophone Company complains that the National Gramophone Corporation has been using the word gramophone in its corporate title and in its advertisements, and is deceiving and misleading the public into the belief that the company is [selling gramophones] [...].” (11 June 1900 New York Tribune, New York, Vol. LX, Nr. 19,566, p. 11)

Thanks Stephan.

This litigation was meant to protect the use of Berliner's term "Gramophone" and to discourage the sale of Zonophones (a non-Berliner product) by a "Gramophone" corporation (or by anyone else for that matter! ). In light of this news item appearing toward mid-June 1900 (by which time National had been selling Valiquet Zonophones for 1-2 months) the plaintiff's claim is rather vague. By this I mean that National had "...been using gramophone in its corporate title and in its advertisements" for around 15 months (almost 4 years if you count the earlier Company); but the selling of Valiquet Zonophones was only a recent occurrence. Yet, the language of the claim could be interpreted as both activities having been carried out simultaneously for the same period of time. I see nothing in this to substantiate Berliner knock-offs having been manufactured.

I would love to be proven wrong on this point! I've seen imitation Edison Class Ms and imitation Graphophones (cylinder and disc), but never (so far) an imitation Berliner Improved Gramophone.

Thanks again, Stephan. You are indeed a master at unearthing elusive bits of fascinating information!

George P.

Are you saying that the full text of the Nov 4, 1899 Owen letter to Johnson ('the Zonophone has arrived')

Wm Barry Owen's quote does not refer to the machines, Stephan, but to the advertising for it. I will try to get the actual original letter used by Martland, if possible.

The same misunderstanding goes for the use of the word "selling" in the legal case - i.e. offering or publicizing Zonophones (not delivering).

There are no Zonophone machines made by Valiquet, or 'Seaman imitation Gramophones' being sold, in real time, prior to at least April of 1900, and not regularly until May of that year (when that reprinted 'Type C' flyer came out).

"The Zonophone has arrived" was more like a will o' the wisp. It did NOT refer to physical machines that one could touch and operate. Owen saw some local advertising in England, with lower prices, and got excited. It took more than TWO years for the Zonophone to take shape: from Feb. 1898 - April 1900.

Allen

I never "reviewed" the Bayly/Kinnear book.

I am sorry, I must have confused you.

AllenKoe wrote: With your skills in finding old newspaper and magazine articles, you should be able to find a detailed ad (in real time), with the efforts of Frank Seaman to "sell" machines between Oct 1899 and March 1900. Do you have any such examples?

I will look out for these. For a start I show you this ad from the St. Louis Republic, Vol. 92, Issue 209, page 5 of 28 January 1900. Unfortunately, the drawing is hard to recognize, but the extension which holds the travelling arm looks a little strange. Admittedly, the thing is called gramophone. Another ad from 1 April 1900 mentions the selling price of $18. Seaman still offered the old models cheaply.

Starkton wrote:

I never "reviewed" the Bayly/Kinnear book.

I am sorry, I must have confused you.

AllenKoe wrote: With your skills in finding old newspaper and magazine articles, you should be able to find a detailed ad (in real time), with the efforts of Frank Seaman to "sell" machines between Oct 1899 and March 1900. Do you have any such examples?

I will look out for these. For a start I show you this ad from the St. Louis Republic, Vol. 92, Issue 209, page 5 of 28 January 1900. Unfortunately, the drawing is hard to recognize, but the extension which holds the travelling arm looks a little strange. Admittedly, the thing is called gramophone. Another ad from 1 April 1900 mentions the selling price of $18. Seaman still offered the old models cheaply.

WOW!!!. The silhouette of the Gramophone pictured looks (at least the support arm) like a Berliner Montross... . Seems very late for this model to be still for sale. Squared base and the lack of a top crank and exposed spring barrel (at least in appearance).
There also appears to be something on the rear left corner of the case . This is the same corner the Berliner Montross' brake is placed. Unless this is merely artistic licence.
Very nice ad. Just wish the image was clearer.

Unfortunately, the drawing is hard to recognize, but the extension which holds the travelling arm looks a little strange.

Depends on what you mean by "strange", Stephan. I agree with 'Western Canada' that this arm support is typical of the later Montross models. If it attaches to the top of the cabinet, it is 'Type One' and if attached to the bottom baseboard, it is 'Type Two.' George once wrote an article (1985) on these machines so he may be able to shed more light.

Jan of 1900 seems kind of late for this Montross to be advertised, but they may have still been kicking around (remaindered), and available for a large discount (w/ some governing problems). They were no longer being manufactured, however, as the Montross Co had agreed to withdraw from the market themselves (after a threatening letter from Johnson's lawyer Horace Pettit in 1898).

It is interesting that you present this Jan 1900 ad from D. K. Myers in St. Louis, Mo., since the same shop later (May 31) offered an actual Zonophone machine, with a genuine picture of the glass-sided Type A. It would be helpful if a pre-May 31 pictured-Zonophone ad turns up, from them or elsewhere.

Allen

AllenKoe wrote: I agree with 'Western Canada' that this arm support is typical of the later Montross models. If it attaches to the top of the cabinet, it is 'Type One' and if attached to the bottom baseboard, it is 'Type Two.' George once wrote an article (1985) on these machines so he may be able to shed more light.
Allen

I also agree that the support looks Montross-like, but as Allen notes, these had not been manufactured for two years at the time this advertisement appeared. It's possible that an old Montross electro was used simply to represent a Gramophone. The image is just too poor for too much speculation...

George P.

It was very, very common to reuse old engravings/electros in that era since it was a relatively big deal to create new ones, and few readers cared about the details we obsess over. I wouldn't read anything into the use of an outdated Montross engraving being used a couple of years later.