The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

can any reproducer be used on any machine? what if anything makes them machine/model specific? thanks

No. Differences include size, the way they mount (will they fit on a given tone arm, will they fit in a way that yields the right angle between the needle and the record), whether they are for lateral or vertical cut records, etc. And of course I think it is fair to say that most collectors will generally want the reproducer to be the model that originally came on a given machine for authenticity.

Clay

Oltractor, you may get more visibility with this and similar questions if you post it in the "Machines" category. This forum is intended for topics relating to Tech Support of the TMF board itself, not for problems or questions about our phonographs. HTH.

oltractor wrote:can any reproducer be used on any machine? what if anything makes them machine/model specific? thanks

Edison Disc reproducers went through some design modifications -- primarily to the weight -- that would make them period-specific, and they were produced with different finishes that are appropriate for specific models. For example, a nickel-plated reproducer would be appropriate on a B-19, a gold-plated reproducer on a C-250, a bronze finish on a W-250, etc., although they are all physically interchangeable from one machine to another. Generally speaking, the reproducer finish should match the plating of the machine's other hardware, and there are many other models of each finish that I didn't list above. The copper-anodized finish reproducer was intended only for the A-150 Disc Phonograph. Also, the Long Play reproducers of 1926 were intended to be used only with the Long Play Phonographs of the same year, although again, they will physically mount to any EDP.

oltractor wrote:can any reproducer be used on any machine? what if anything makes them machine/model specific? thanks

You might find this article helpful:

http://www.antiquephono.org/basic-antiq ... onal-tips/

George P.

Given the flagrantly un-rebuilt condition of that very grungy Exhibition, I would wonder about the general credibility of this article!

Henry wrote:Given the flagrantly un-rebuilt condition of that very grungy Exhibition, I would wonder about the general credibility of this article!

Henry, the article is excellent, and the link is from one of the leading experts on antique phonographs in the US!

Clay

I just read the article. It was very informative to beginners just starting out in the hobby. It was also, an excellent review for advanced collectors.
Harvey Kravitz

FloridaClay wrote:

Henry wrote:Given the flagrantly un-rebuilt condition of that very grungy Exhibition, I would wonder about the general credibility of this article!

Henry, the article is excellent, and the link is from one of the leading experts on antique phonographs in the US!

Clay

Well, thanks Clay and Harvey for the kind words.

Henry, I guess I owe you an explanation.

That Exhibition is indeed untouched. It's on a Victor I that I bought in August 1972. Naturally, there's a story behind it, but that's not really germane to this explanation. Back then, I didn't know that sound boxes "should" be rebuilt, and I wouldn't have known where to get gaskets. Surprisingly, this Exhibition played pretty well, although I never played many records on this. So that explains why I didn't rebuild that sound box as soon as I brought it home. Years passed, and other disc machines joined the collection, offering better sound and multiple mainsprings or electric motors. I don't think I've played a record on that Victor I in 15 years, and at some point it occurred to me that every part on this Victor I was factory-supplied to the original owner. As long as it's not a "player," and the gaskets are still intact, why should I alter its original state? (Granted, the brass bell is polished every decade or so, the nickel is kept reasonably clean, and the motor is lightly lubed when the brass is polished.) In antique automobile collecting, you'd call this a "survivor." I have one other machine like this - all the rest have rebuilt sound boxes/reproducers.

Perhaps that Victor I is not a good candidate for the banner shot.

In any event, I hope you won't "judge the article by its cover." If there are inaccuracies there, the APS would welcome corrections!

Best to all,

George P.

Brilliant article, George!