The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

What a great looking machine, you should be proud of it.. What I am a bit confused about is what do those two different sets of latches do. I can see the normal set of the front, but what does the other set on top do? I too love the wood look.

larry

Larry, the latches on the outside of the lid open the record storage bin (see the 3rd and 4th photos). The later Viva-tonal models had perhaps more elegant storage on the inside of the lid, under the veneer.

I can attest that this is indeed a very nice portable, since I saw it in person a week ago.

I own a model 161, which is similar in size and bulk, but with inside record storage. It is heavy - almost 30 pounds according to my bathroom scale.

According to LFTD & my bathroom scale, the Victor 2-55 weighs 24 pounds.

The sound quality of this phonograph must be quite impressive, especially compared to the period Victor with a mica diaphragm.

WDC wrote:The sound quality of this phonograph must be quite impressive, especially compared to the period Victor with a mica diaphragm.

Actually, when properly rebuilt, the Victor 1-5's brass No.4 soundbox is very impressive. The Viva-tonal reproducer, while having excellent clarity, is not quite as good in the mid-range or bass. However, I have just sent this one off to George Vollema to rebuild with new gaskets, etc. Still, in my experience, the Viva-tonal reproducers are not quite as good-sounding as contemporaneous Victors (No. 4, Orthophonic) or HMVs (No. 4, 5A or 5B), at least on the portables.

I rebuilt 2 #15, using the same advice that Walt Sommers gives for the Orthophonics.
Meaning:

1) Make sure to take the soundbox apart, every nut & bolt, everything must be cleaned properly.
2) Use NEW ball bearing balls for the pivot points, make sure they are industrial grade, magnetic.
3) Use good gaskets. I found that exhibition tubing gives the best results to my ears. soundgen on eBay have "harder" gasket tubing, some like that better.
4) Apply a thin film of grease around the edge of the diaphragm.
5) There are no available newly made back rubber flange, so either build/mold your own or do what I did, use liquid silicone gasket around the old one.

When properly done, they do have a lot of bass IMO!
I have a 202, a bit later then this one, it sounds very, very good. It actually holds it own against a HMV 102, that has the 5A soundbox.

It has an interesting horn, sort of re-entrant horn, the tonearm continues inside the horn, that has two small chambers, were the tonearm ends, right before the chambers & the sound just bounces back out.
I marked the tonearm with red in this photo, the other is a photo of the inside of the horn, were you see the tonearm end, right before the chambers. Old photos, its black nowadays, thank god
Do you know what type of horn yours has?

They sure are heavy, mine is almost as heavy as my VV-IV
Good thing is that although the handle is brittle, it has a solid metal center, that holds the weight without problems.

Very nice machine by the way, well preserved. Thanks for featuring it!

B.B.B, thanks for the detailed info. The 202 is an English Columbia product AFAIK, I believe dating from before the merger with HMV into EMI. I don't know the shape of the horn in my 160, not having the desire to disassemble it yet (I remember the first 163 I owned was a real pain to take apart, with what seemed like dozens of screws in odd places on the motorboard), as the motor is smooth and silent. I'll bet the horn is cast iron, however, as the phono weighs probably 30 lbs (as AZ said).

beaumonde wrote:B.B.B, thanks for the detailed info. The 202 is an English Columbia product AFAIK, I believe dating from before the merger with HMV into EMI. I don't know the shape of the horn in my 160, not having the desire to disassemble it yet (I remember the first 163 I owned was a real pain to take apart, with what seemed like dozens of screws in odd places on the motorboard), as the motor is smooth and silent. I'll bet the horn is cast iron, however, as the phono weighs probably 30 lbs (as AZ said).

Thats true, its an english-made model, 1928 or 1929.
Only 6 screws on the motorboard on mine, but dozens of strangely placed screws when you are to take wholly it apart for painting & re-dressing Very intricate design.

I think Columbia put more effort and ingenuity into their portables than into their regular line. It's as if they knew that they weren't really going to compete with the Orthophonic line so they offered portables with a LOT more style than Victor's. The reproducers might not be as good as Victor but I think the Viva-Tonal recordings were balanced to compensate.

Unfortunately in the UK they ended up putting the trademark on rebranded HMV machines.