The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Ok, so heres the deal. The other day i was outside using my model A Columbia to play a few cylinders on the porch, and Im sitting there cranking and cranking and the springs doesn't seem to be giving me any resistance. So i take the crank out in preparation to remove the mechanism from the case and the wooden piece of the crank falls of? So i must have lost the washer that holds it on...But i figured it would work just the same. So i take out the mechanism and take a look at everything, and everything is fine? i pop the crank back on while i rest the mechanism on the floor and begin to crank. But again, Im cranking and cranking but nothing!? After cranking for a bit, i realize the crack isn't turning the shaft connected to the spring. but in fact the crank is slipping on it self. Now Im going to have a hard time explaining this so ill make a video later, but ill have a shot at explaining it: the way i see it, your crank is made of three sections. First the part that has the wooden knob where you hold, next the part leading up along the cabinet, and finally, the piece that leads inside the cabinet. Whats happening is while Im cranking, part 1 and part 2 are moving as they normally should, but part 2 is slipping around part number 3. Has anyone every experienced this? i think perhaps a weld broke between piece 2 and 3, or maybe the bolt holding the wooden part on has something to do with it. I think i tried holding onto the metal part that the wooden part connects to and as long as that doesn't slip , it seems to crank! HELP ME PLEASE!

Aaron

Aaron,

it sounds like you have a flat shank crank (winding key) such as this Victor one from the Victor Victrola page:



If that's the case you are right there are three separate pieces to the crank and the arm is not engaging the shaft. Even with the wooden knob or handle loose that shouldn't affect the arm-shaft connection. I'm not familiar with early Columbia cranks-is it missing a bolt or nut on the end where the arm meets the shaft? Or is it a rivet or weld? Closely check the end where the shaft that enters the machine meets the flat arm. It's probably a fairly simple fix....

Regards,
J.

Thanks John. Ill have to check it out tomorrow... And Dave would like to know how you can post a reply and be sleeping at the same time?

Aaron

Sounds like a job for a welding torch.

Shane wrote:Sounds like a job for a welding torch.

Actually, it is a job for a judiciously-applied ball-peen hammer to the center of the face of the shaft; or, for a center-punch applied to one, two, three, or four points around the circumference of the circle where the shaft and shank join. It would be best to work against a steel rod as an anvil that fits fully the diameter of the hole in the crank, otherwise hammering downward upon the end of the crank with the 'hook' end of the crank resting on a hard surface as the anvil will bend the hooks and cause even greater problems. Don't try to clamp the crank in a vise as you will only scratch the crank and still not repair the problem. It will not require many blows from a hammer/punch to resolve this, but they must be well-placed and firm. A relatively simple repair, but one requiring a certain degree of preparation, confidence, and finesse!

I've done this repair twice on early cranks and in both cases the crank shafts were not steel or iron, but rather brass, which is very malleable under a hammer. The shank is steel -- which is why these cranks fail in the manner they do -- the harder steel wears the softer brass. The idea is to expand the metal by hammering/punching to cause it to again bind against the shank. Check with a magnet to see if the shaft is brass on your example. You can effect the same repair if the shaft is ferrous, you'll just have to work a tiny bit harder.

John M

Hmm... Aaron, is this crank a repro or original? I've seen several newer substitutes for early fall-off cranks that were inferior to the real ones.

Model "A" type cranks are one piece castings:
Chuck

WDC wrote:Hmm... Aaron, is this crank a repro or original? I've seen several newer substitutes for early fall-off cranks that were inferior to the real ones.

Norman....I bought the machine from Charley and he thought the crank was original, but i had thoughts otherwise, as the condition of the crank compared to the rest of the machine seemed too perfect. The nickel is still VERY shiny unlike the machine, and my thoughts were proven thanks to Chuck. Thanks Chuck and everyone else! I'll let you know how i make out with repairs.

Aaron

Aaron wrote:

WDC wrote:Hmm... Aaron, is this crank a repro or original? I've seen several newer substitutes for early fall-off cranks that were inferior to the real ones.

Norman....I bought the machine from Charley and he thought the crank was original, but i had thoughts otherwise, as the condition of the crank compared to the rest of the machine seemed too perfect. The nickel is still VERY shiny unlike the machine, and my thoughts were proven thanks to Chuck. Thanks Chuck and everyone else! I'll let you know how i make out with repairs.

Aaron

Aaron---I trust you are not trying to say you have more knowledge or insight than Mr. Hummel. It would be a MAJOR leap of faith for me to believe that he would purport that your crank was an original since his word, in my experience, is beyond reproach. You must be ---and I am sure ---mistaken. Just as a point of information, it took me many more years than you have been alive, to call or refer to Mr. Hummel as "Charley" as you do at your young age ----out of my respect. Mr Hummel is not the everyday "pompous ass" ----but a very intelligent individual for whom I have great respect for. Michael

bostonmike1 wrote:

Aaron wrote:

WDC wrote:Hmm... Aaron, is this crank a repro or original? I've seen several newer substitutes for early fall-off cranks that were inferior to the real ones.

Norman....I bought the machine from Charley and he thought the crank was original, but i had thoughts otherwise, as the condition of the crank compared to the rest of the machine seemed too perfect. The nickel is still VERY shiny unlike the machine, and my thoughts were proven thanks to Chuck. Thanks Chuck and everyone else! I'll let you know how i make out with repairs.

Aaron

Aaron---I trust you are not trying to say you have more knowledge or insight than Mr. Hummel. It would be a MAJOR leap of faith for me to believe that he would purport that your crank was an original since his word, in my experience, is beyond reproach. You must be ---and I am sure ---mistaken. Just as a point of information, it took me many more years than you have been alive, to call or refer to Mr. Hummel as "Charley" as you do at your young age ----out of my respect. Mr Hummel is not the everyday "pompous ass" ----but a very intelligent individual for whom I have great respect for. Michael

Michael,

Don't get me wrong, i would never imagine that i would EVER have more knowledge then Charley. In my opinion Charley is one of the most intelligent people i know. And i have just as much if not more respect for Charley than anyone. And please don't think I'm being disrespectful by calling him "Charley" other than "Mr. Hummel" I called him "Mr. Hummel" for sometime until he said to me with a smile on his face to call him "Charley". Charley is a very great man and a very important person in my collecting and personal life. Since Norman introduced him to me, not even a year ago, he has been more help to me than any other person in the hobby. I talk to him about 2 or 3 times a month. I will never be able to repay Charley for all that he has done for me. I look at him as being a friend, a fellow collector, and a mentor, but certainly NOT a "pompous ass" or anything close to that...

Aaron