Columbia disc machines: registry or database ?

[De Soto Frank]

Sorry if this has been around before - I did a search, but did not find anything...


I now have three Columbia Grafonolas, one "Jewel" table-model, and two uprights.

I now have Baumbach's "Columbia Phonograph Companion, Vol. II"

I still have not been able to "positively" ID my two uprights...


Is there somewhere a serial number registry or database for Columbia machines, similar to P.C. Edie's Victor-Victrola database ?


Thanks...

[Lucius1958]

Well, considering that the Disc Graphophones did not carry ID plates, any sort of systematic registry is pretty unlikely…

Baumbach mentions that a few models may have had paper labels; but were any of these printed with serial numbers?

Bill

[De Soto Frank]

Don't know about the external horn Disc Graphophones, but my three Grafonola's all have serial numbers stamped into the motor-plate.

My little Columbia "Jewel" ($35 table-top with lid) still had enough of the label on the bottom that specifically ID'd it as a "Jewel"...

A friend has an Eclipse (more expensive "hornless Grafonola"), which does not have a motor plate - the motor is fastened directly to the wooden deck, as with Victor. I don't know if his machine has a serial # anywhere...


My other two G-fonolas are uprights, the smaller one probably a Mignonette, the larger probably a "late" Nonpareil. Both definitely preceede the alpha-numeric model system...

One of the variances between both my uprights and Baumbach's book is that neither of them have cabinet-knobs on the face of the tone-leaves (as shown in most catalogue cuts), just the knob on the side of the cabinet at the front.


I guess I'll have to learn how to do this data-base stuff and be the guy to create one, "for the good of the order"...

[FloridaClay]

For whatever it might be worth, I couldn't find a serial number anywhere on my Eclipse or my second style AH. The latter does have the complete paper label on the bottom, with "Type AH" in small type on the top left. An F-2 (well, the remnants of one, but that is another story) has the model number on a small decal inside the lid underneath the big decal.

Clay

P.S. The on-line version of Baumbach's book is supposed to have some additional models covered in it.

[alang]

I also found that of my four Grafonolas, two are not even mentioned in the Baumbach book and the other two are significant variations from what is shown and described in the book. I've contacted the author about that and he said he would include the updated information in the new edition. I have not seen the ebook version yet, so not sure if that has happened. One problem with the book is that a lot of it is based on period catalogs with drawings of the machines. There often was a lot of artistic freedom with these drawings, which makes actual product matching of specific features difficult. Also, Columbia changed their products frequently, so a catalog picture from one year may not accurately reflect the same model of the next or previous year. Finally, Columbia produced so many different machines that a complete book would probably be difficult to create.

I think a registry database would be great, but because of the aforementioned challenges it would have to allow for pictures and extensive comments. Dating of machines would always be approximate, since many Grafonolas don't have serial numbers and often not even model numbers.

Andreas

[De Soto Frank]

The first edition of "CPC, vol. II" mentions in the text chapters towards the beginning, that while ALL Victrolas, were entirely built in the Camden plant (cabinets and all), Columbia had one main plant in Bridgeport, CT, where presumably, all the hardware ( motors, tone-arms, etc.) were made there in B-port, and they had contracts with a variety of cabinet manufacturers ( CPC says 15 ?)

I don't know if the Cabinets were shipped to B-port for final assembly and distribution, or if B-port shipped the appropriate hard-parts to the cabinet factories, or what.

But having several different cabinet sources could certainly account for some of the cabinet variations ( "Period Grafonolas" not withstanding).

I'll play around with some spread-sheets and see if I can some-up with some sort of template for accumulating the data.

[alang]

You could also try something like the recent Edisonic registry format as a post here. This would allow for some template, but still free form and ability to add pictures. Also would allow other forum members to add missing information. Just a thought.

Andreas

[phonojim]

What I think is needed is a book which, wherever possible would use current photos of actual machines along with the data, including photos of known variations. Admittedly a huge undertaking and one beyond the scope of my ambition at this point, but one that I feel is the best way to get the job done.
Regarding the use of catalog illustrations, I used to collect postwar Lionel trains. Their catalogs were full of things that were never produced as shown, or in some cases, that were never produced at all!

Jim