The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Hi All,
I have had an Edison standard for some 45 years and just registered yesterday. The O reproducer on the Edison I think is an unmodified O. I have some 4 min. wax records I would like to play an wondered if replicas of the Q weights have been made by any one in the past or even currently.
Thank you All kindly,
Allen

I have a question to the general Forum membership. Is it not recommended to play the harder moulded two minute cylinders on an unmodified O reproducer? How about brown wax records? Thanks, Jerry Blais

What do you mean by unmodified?

A Ford 1 wrote:Hi All,
I have had an Edison standard for some 45 years and just registered yesterday. The O reproducer on the Edison I think is an unmodified O. I have some 4 min. wax records I would like to play an wondered if replicas of the Q weights have been made by any one in the past or even currently.
Thank you All kindly,
Allen

I hope you get the answers you seek.
And welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy it!
Bob

What do you mean by unmodified?

I assumed Allan was considering changing out his full O reproducer weight for a trimmed one to reduce weight on his records. Perhaps I'm wrong. Jerry Blais

Jerry B. wrote:

What do you mean by unmodified?

I assumed Allan was considering changing out his full O reproducer weight for a trimmed one to reduce weight on his records. Perhaps I'm wrong. Jerry Blais

Got it Jerry. I'd invite some others to comment as I'm not sure but my feeling would be two min molded wax ok, 4 min wax trowel weight is better and for brown wax no.

Edison recognized that the heavier weight of the O coupled with its horizontal mounting which placed all of the weight on the cylinder was causing 4 min. wax records to wear prematurely. The company's solution to the problem was to trim the weight to lessen stylus pressure and wear. Judging by what I have seen in a lifetime of collecting, more O reproducers have the heavy weight than the trimmed weight. Steve Medved may disagree, which is OK with me. He has seen far more of them than I have. In fact, I would like to hear his opinion on this question.
I recently bought some E+ wax Amberols which look like they may have never been played; they are the best examples I have ever seen. I will be playing these only with an H reproducer or possibly an S because these are the lightest weight 4 min. reproducers available (you could also use a K or R). I have both types of O but will not play these cylinders on either one. I would also never play brown wax on any type of O or even a C. Those should only be played with an Automatic or possibly a B.
Also, in my experience, I have not had a problem with playing 2 minute wax on either type of O. The stylus to groove contact area is much larger which distributes the force over a much larger area thus causing less wear to the record.

Jim

Hi again,
Sorry after my first post my wife call down to me to take her to the hair dresser and make some trips about town. The O reproducer I have has a round weight with a small tail for the hinge and a larger one for the limit pin and is marked O on the under side of the limit pin tail. I have read that the modified O had a spade shaped weight and was remarked Q. I assume it is an original or unmodified O. I am a 76 year old retired Mechanical Engineer and can understand and appreciate the contact pressure of the small vs. larger grooved record etc. I thank you all for any more info. and was interested in the Q weight so as not to need to change the reproducer.

By the by I also purchased an A-I from Stanton this last auction. I had not purchased a phonograph in more than 40 years until last month.

I recall when I was about 17 or so going to home from the Baltimore Poly Technic High School and stopping at Howard St. (Antique Row) and seeing my first A-I at Asner's antiques it had and M reproducer just like the one I just bought. Mr. Asner wanted $250.00 the price marked on the original bill for the machine. I truly lusted after that machine but I did not have $0.25 in my pocket and my father was only paying his one employee 40 or 50 dollars a week at the time. I just paid $2250.00 for that same machine but considering inflation it was probably less expensive to postpone the purchase.
Allen

Hi again,
I am not sure if Edison and all reading this under stand that not only the weight but also the weight distribution relative to the weight hinge point is important to record damage. Phonograph mandrels have run out and records are not perfectly cylindrical nor are the inner and outer surfaces of the cylinder perfectly coaxial. All of the above requires the play afforded the stylus by the weight, limit pin and pin limiting surround or loop. The force on the stylus when the record is still is that of the force acting at the lever length at the stylus to support the weight. When the record is spinning the force on the stylus is the previous force with a sinusoidal ( + -) added force needed to accelerate and decelerate the mass of the weight stylus bar assembly. The force is therefore greater as the assembly is moved up and less as the assembly moves down. Additionally, the more run out the larger this variation in force. An optimized design would minimize this variation for any given record by having the majority of weight (mass) located close to the hinge point. Any one interested enough to want to know why this is true can contact me because this comment is already long as it stands.
Allen with an e
ps. My first name was a contraction of Albert and Helen thank god they did not call me Helbert!

The O that's on my Triumph E has a trimmed weight.edisonplayer