The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

This could also be titled "Way More Than You Ever Cared to Know About Martin's Standards". If you're insomniac, then this is the thread for you!

PART ONE: The "Alpha" Machine.

In this past six months, I stumbled across not one, but two Standards that I felt needed to be at my house. They form "bookends" to my Standard collection. They are my "Alpha" and "Omega" machines.
While not absolutely the very first and very last serial numbers, they embody the attributes one would expect to find on those respective machines. I'll present them here beginning with the "Alpha" machine.



I'm still trying to come up with a name for this one. ("Alphie" comes to mind, but I'm not sure I want to go there.) This is Standard # 873. I spotted this on the UK ebay site. I'm not sure how I managed to get my wife to agree to my buying another machine, but it may be partly due to the confusion of restoring our living room to its 1920s state. ("What's that under there? Why there's another phonograph! How'd that get there?") At any rate, #873 made its journey back to the US this past Summer and ended up at my house in California.
However well the seller packed the machine, the UPS international service managed to wreak its mischief on the poor machine. It was fortunate that the seller had separated the case from the metal parts. Two of the three motor mount screws were sheared off. The brake lever was bent above the bedplate. The halfnut bar was bent. The early single-screw reproducer clips were bent and most distressingly, one of the springs on the early governor (with the brass weights) was bent.
After carefully re-shaping the reproducer clips, the governor spring, the halfnut bar, the brake lever and getting the replacement mount screws from George Vollema, I discovered that the mechanism was jammed. (Hmm.) Pretty much all of the machines I've acquired ended up getting a tear-down and cleaning and this one was no exception. The jam seemed to be where the bull gear of the spring barrel meshes with the gear on the first shaft. I had determined that the best way to clear the jam would be to separate the gear cluster from the spring barrel. Just as I was loosening the last screw of the cluster I happened to think: "what if the spring was shipped with tension on it?" I grabbed hold of the barrel as a precaution. As I separated the cluster, sure enough, I found that the spring still had tension on it. It took me awhile to unwind the spring barrel that way, but at least none of the gears were further damaged. (I still have all of my fingers, too!)

Freed of the bull gear, the gear cluster still wouldn't turn. Upon disassembly, I discovered that the first shaft was bent. (Thanks again, UPS!) The early motors were different than everything made from late 1901 onward, so I knew that this probably wasn't going to be as easy to fix. Fortunately, George came to my rescue once more. He was able to press the original gears on to another shaft.
Newer style vs. early style first shaft with gears.

While all that was taking place up in Michigan, I was preparing the rest of the motor. I have never come up against such a sticky, gooey mechanism as this was. It seemed to have been lubricated with tar. (Maybe the effects of being in an area with lots of coal smoke?)
I'd guess this was the first cleaning it had since 1898. In any case, cleaning involved lots of Lacquer Thinner and scrubbing to get the stickiness off. Even when visibly clean, the bearings in the gear cluster really held onto the goo and the gears wouldn't turn freely. The machine had been advertised as running, but I doubt it could have played a cylinder. Another bath of Lacquer Thinner, some more scrubbing and polishing the bearings finally had their effect.

During the cleaning I found two more things. One was a crack in the motor frame. Possibly due to the rough handling during shipping. However, I did hear that early on, some motors had problem castings and were rejected and re-worked (which may account for some machines with early serial numbers having slightly later attributes). At any rate, it's hard to say who's to blame. The crack seemed pretty stable, so I stuffed a little JB Weld into it as a precaution and moved on.
The other thing I found was a casting mark on the top of the frame. It looks like "2" and "98". Could that be the month and year of the casting? (Inquiring Martins want to know...)

As I said earlier these Squaretop Standard motors were different. They were smaller. Just for comparison, I photographed #873 next to #820428.
As you can see the later motor is quite a bit beefier. In order to squeeze out all of the performance I could of the earlier motor, I took out the mainspring to clean and re-lubricate. The spring itself was in surprisingly good shape. I do have a replacement spring, but elected to re-use the original. I noticed that the casting inside the spring barrel was quite rough. Some of this may have been partially due to slight rust, but was mostly due to not being very well finished at the factory. I'm a little ashamed to admit it, but I very lightly sanded the inside of the barrel so that the spring would have a little less resistance in unwinding. My sin is recorded here.

The test play went surprisingly well. The motor had good power for its size and the cylinder played with a lot less warble than I was prepared for. I borrowed a model C reproducer from another machine for the test play. Although the Automatic reproducer that came with #873 looked OK-ish, it didn't sound good. It will probably need new gaskets and a diaphragm at least.

MORE:

While on the subject of this Automatic reproducer, I'd like to ask all of you (including you Steve Medved) have you ever seen an Automatic like this one? There is no inscription referring to "National Phonograph Co." (which would make sense if it was for export for Edison-Bell).

There is no serial number on the tube plate. The other curious thing is that the outside diameter of the tube is slightly bigger than the typical Automatic (or for that matter any of the other subsequent Edison reproducers). By slightly, I mean that the difference might be 1/64".
Typical Automatic on left. Knurling is different.

The normal witches hat horn or the all brass horn is too tight to fit without forcing it. I'd just count this reproducer as a very well made copy were it not for the fact that it looks very old and it fits a rather odd looking old brass horn I have on another early Standard.
Horn that fits is on right.

Additionally, I know of at least one other Automatic on an Edison Bell Standard in the UK that also does not have the "National Phonograph Co." inscription (it however does have a serial number).

Here's the run-down:

CASE:
Notice the top edge of the lid is routered or profiled. ( Anybody got a better way of stating this?) I'll bet that was a real weak point when folks tried to pick up the machine by the handle.

The bottom edge of the lid has a beaded edge. That beaded edge would later migrate to the top edge of the lower case by the time that the 4 clip cases were introduced.
Here, the top edge of the lower case is just a plain, straight edge. The baseboard has an ogee profile and is made of two oak pieces - one piece is fairly narrow, and the other is a pretty wide. Also notice the baseboard is warped - not an uncommon thing for Edison baseboards - but this warp is more extreme.
I suspect this was made worse for two reasons - one is that wide pieces of oak , unless the grain is selected carefully, will tend to get a warp. We can see the other cause by flipping over the case. It shows us that the baseboard is screwed to the case by only two screws.
I suspect that this further allowed the board to move as it dried out. I'd guess this became a problem early on in production since most later baseboards were attached with four or more screws. Until I can find a gentle way to un-warp the board, I'll keep it this way.

STILL MORE:

MECHANICS:
In its very, very earliest incarnation the Standard had a brass mandrel. (See Scott Corbett's #3 or Anil Menon's #4) This mandrel is nickel plated. The mandrel pulley is the early dished type. As you would expect, you'll find no gear guard. It does retain some of the original striping. Notice that there are no screws on the bearing ends. This makes long-lasting adjustments difficult.

The reproducer is held by clips using a single screw each. Using them, it's easy to see why they were re-designed to have two screws each.

The governor has brass weights that are riveted-on.
The brake acts on the governor yoke rather than on the disc itself. The belt pulley is dished rather like the mandrel pulley. Notice how the belt tensioner roller has little flanges.
I don't know if this was the original belt, but it's thin, cracked, and way old. (As a matter of fact, so am I.) It still works, so it stays on.

REPLACEMENT PARTS:

Motor mount bolts (2)
First gear shaft
Rubber cushions (6 - for motor mounts)

I've always wanted one of these early Standards, so I'm happy to have it for ready reference and to listen to the latest hits of 1898. Thanks for making it this far in my dissection of the early Standard. Next up: the "Omega" Standard...

Thanks for posting this - I love these kinds of stories!

Thanks for the post. I like seeing the machines brought back. I brought a Standard C plate on EBay and am putting it together. Next step is to order a bunch of parts. I just started this one and hopefully it will be put together by mid Dec. After that being a glutton for punishment I brought a standard four clip plate. That one is a real project and will take some time to locate the parts. On my other four clip I had to order a whole bottom case to take the base off of it. I was thinking of modifying a standard A or B case bottom to fit but I am not that talented and it is thicker. It would not have been noticeable when on though..

This is great. I have a two clip machine with a lid like yours but the beaded edge is on the cabinet. My lid is "routered" like yours and it DID crack apart due to use of the handle over the years.It is cracked at about the ¾ point on the flat top and also along the front and rear routered parts. I have a line on another lid, but it's the rounded edge, not routered, and if I replace it it will look good but won't be correct, which will drive me bat poop crazy. I'm wondering if I can find a woodworker to 'router' the rounded lid... I'd like to save the original but it is pretty trashed.

Mine came with what looks like an early, odd B reproducer. It also has a bracket for a rear crane. I've just purchased a correct shaver (which is missing) and would LOVE to find a Standard Speaker... but yeah, good luck, eh? Guess I will be chasing a crane next.

The lid bugs me. It really bugs me!

Martin,
I'm interested to note that your reproducer clips are single screw, whereas mine on No 489 are two.
Is there any actual logical progression, or were they just random?.
Also my case has the staff mould on the top of the bottom case, rather than the bottom of the top.
I notice that your base does not appear to have ever had rubber domes on it.Is this the original base or has it been replaced?, None of mine have only two screws to hold them in position.
Regards,
Alistair.

Alistair,
I can only guess that the single screw type clips were on their way out when the Standard started production. Remember the Home had this type of clip some months before the Standard came out, so perhaps the complaints were already rolling in. Perhaps some of the early Standards having the two screw type may be due to early dealer replacement of the inferior single screw clips.

At this date we also have to look through the haze of collectors "upgrading" their machines without regard to the historical record. (By the way, we now know that the historical record is a cylinder. But I digress...)

Looking at the first 3000 machines, I see a mix of both types going back as far as #43. In general, the earlier machines tend to have the single screw type and the later machines tend to have the two screw type. I hope this helps because now I'm confused.

Georg,
Why not try to repair or conserve your lid? Personally, I'd rather have a partially compromised original than a spiffy replacement. I encourage you to start a thread on your machine and post some photos of its issues. Sometimes that alone will present the solution you are looking for.


Regards,
Martin

Regards

My Standard Model-A Suitcase is serial number S283. It has all the case attributes as yours but has the 2-screw reproducers version clips.

Rich Gordon

Rich,
Congratulations on having such a low number machine!
I can't help but notice though that is has a gear guard which was not supplied until much later.
Also you have a top and bottom which both have a mould.
Presumably the case has has been married at some time, unless someone knows differently.
Martin, do you know if guards were retro-fitted?
Alistair.