The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I have recently purchased a first style Graphophone Q with a #3 reproducer. The stylus bar has become detached from the diaphragm. Can anyone help by telling me the correct method of fixing it back together. Should I use glue or wax?

If you want to be authentic, use a drop of shellac. I've also used "super glue" with excellent results: removal is done by gently twisting, but then it needs to be cleaned with acetone (finger nail polish remover).

George P.

Hi George
Thank you for the reply. I have just unpacked the Q and noticed that the diaphragm is aluminium. I have checked in Howard Hazelcorn book which suggests this is correct. Can I still use Shellac to bond the stylus bar to the aluminium diaphragm?
Regards

zapper wrote:Hi George
Thank you for the reply. I have just unpacked the Q and noticed that the diaphragm is aluminium. I have checked in Howard Hazelcorn book which suggests this is correct. Can I still use Shellac to bond the stylus bar to the aluminium diaphragm?
Regards

The "aluminum" referred to in the book is what the reproducer body is made from. The diaphragm in a #3 reproducer was originally glass, but mica is an acceptable substitute. These diaphragms are readily available from the major suppliers listed in the main menu.

That said, shellac would probably bond the stylus bar and aluminum diaphragm. Before you do anything with that aluminum diaphragm, could you either post a photo of it, or describe it? There were period aluminium replacements but they seldom show up on Graphophone reproducers.

George P.

Hi George
The phonograph is stamped on the edge of the baseplate with the numbers 635591 if that helps identify its age and the aluminium diaphragm is quit shiny and perfectly round, which may suggest that it has not been cut to replace an earlier glass/mica disc. I have tried to take some close up photos, which hopefully will show the diaphragm in sufficient detail. Look forward to your thoughts and any suggestions regarding replacement mica suppliers.
Regards

Well, it's not a Mobley or a Hawthorne & Sheble, but it doesn't look home-made either. If you choose to go the glass or mica route, I'd keep the aluminum one in an envelope.

I get my diaphragms from Ron Sitko, but most any of the parts suppliers can help you.

Good luck!

George P.

I can't identify the repro, but the diaphragm looks like mica to me. The reflected light in the first photo looks more like mica and the center where the stylse attaches looks like a layer or two of mica has lifted off. I don't think a thin piece of aluminum would exhibit those traits.

I wonder if the inside was painted silver to make it "look" aluminum?

Brad wrote:I can't identify the repro, but the diaphragm looks like mica to me. The reflected light in the first photo looks more like mica and the center where the stylse attaches looks like a layer or two of mica has lifted off. I don't think a thin piece of aluminum would exhibit those traits.

I wonder if the inside was painted silver to make it "look" aluminum?

In the first photo, that's most likely residue of the old shellac.

Secondly, a quick touch test would tell whether it's mica or not; mica would feel scratchier, while aluminum would not.

Thirdly, why would anyone paint a mica diaphragm to look like aluminum - particularly when it's not usually visible?

Bill

Looks like mica to me too.

Clay

Hi Thanks everybody for posting the replies. I have now cleaned the machine and assumed it is a mica diaphragm and played a Columiba brown cylinder on it. As most say the sound was not the best. I then tried a #7 from the 2nd style Q. This was much louder. So now my question is should I put some extra weight on the original reproducer to increase the sound or would this damage the cylinder. Also as George mentioned does anyone know the weight of the Mobley weight shown as an addition for this reproducer. Not likely to find one original or repro. If anyone can help it would be appreciated.
Regards