Gilbert Model No 53

[Jayl65]

I can't find much info on Gilbert Gramophones online. Check out this one listed on CL in the Phoenix area.

http://prescott.craigslist.org/atq/5866036424.html

Any information on these machine would be helpful. Most everything I find says they were not high quality machines. But, I find conflicting information on them at:

http://www.gilbert-gramophones.co.uk

This site says they were made by master craftsmen and have great bass. I kind of like the William and Mary/Spanish style case.

[epigramophone]

Gilbert gramophones were not cheap but, as the Gilbert website states, the company also produced a lower priced range under the Geisha name.

Gilbert machines are of interest to collectors because of their distinctive features, such as the bugle shaped tonearm and the Tone Reflector soundbox with it's Mother of Pearl front mask. Some models also featured tambour doors linked to the lid opening mechanism and a small electric lamp to assist placing the needle on the record.

I have never owned or heard a Gilbert so cannot comment on the bass response, but I assume that the larger models with saxophone shaped horns would out perform the Model 53. I do have a Tone Reflector soundbox which is certainly LOUD.

[CarlosV]

I have a Gilbert cabinet, which I bought out of curiosity about its sound. It has all the features that Epi mentions, the bugle arm, the pearl-face soundbox and the lamp with a switch on the lid (that has to be connected to a battery that I never installed). The sound is pretty well balanced, but it has three drawbacks: it is extremely LOUD, even when I use ultra soft tone needles, and its horn is poorly designed, which kind of cancels out a hypothetical benefit at the low end of the spectrum of the longer path allowed by the arm. The third drawback is the constraint on the soundbox alignment imposed by the arm: its pivot point geometry only permits it to be perpendicular to the disc when the needle is a fixed given length, otherwise it will be canted (and potentially damaging to the record), making it cumbersome to adjust every time I want to play a record on it. For these reasons I don't use it that often.

[Phono48]

I've had a few Gilbert machines over the last 40 years, and in my experience, they are cheap, nasty things. The cabinet panels were made of very thin plywood, nailed (not screwed) to the four corner posts, and heavily varnished to hide the unattractive plywood finish. The motor boards were so thin that the turntables flexed as the motor was wound. The Garrard motors were the one good thing about them, and were it not for the hideous (in my opinion) "bugle" arms, they would be considered no better, and indeed somewhat worse, than the thousands of off brand machines that proliferated in the late twenties/early thirties. I have also had a couple of their portables, which looked very impressive, with 12" turntables, and very fancy designs stamped into the coverings, but on removing the motorboards, the finish inside looked as though a few apple crates had been sacrificed to make the machine. I for one will never buy another.

[Jayl65]

Thanks for the input everyone. I was skeptical about the quality. Now it has been confirmed. I'll pass on this one.

[Marco Gilardetti]

The third drawback is the constraint on the soundbox alignment imposed by the arm: its pivot point geometry only permits it to be perpendicular to the disc when the needle is a fixed given length, otherwise it will be canted (and potentially damaging to the record), making it cumbersome to adjust every time I want to play a record on it. For these reasons I don't use it that often.

Is this the reason why the soundbox looks worryingly tilted in most pictures of Gilbert gramophones, perhaps? I've seen pictures in which the soundbox lays at almost 45°...

[CarlosV]

Is this the reason why the soundbox looks worryingly tilted in most pictures of Gilbert gramophones, perhaps? I've seen pictures in which the soundbox lays at almost 45°...

Yes, Marco, if you see the geometry of the tone arm, it pivots radially to the center of the disc, so the height of the needle will affect directly the angle of the soundbox, and, as we know,there is no standardization of needle lengths, and the height you screw it in depends on your fingers. On top of that, the rubber linking the soundbox to the arm tends to become quite mushy, and if not replaced will also contribute to cant the soundbox. Everytime I play records on it, I spend almost the same time adjusting it as listening to the music. Having said that, its reproduction is not bad, if you use an ultra soft tone needle, and its construction - at least the one I have - is not as lousy as Phono says: there is probably some variability in quality depending on the model. All brands produced machines in several degrees of quality depending on the market they targeted, like HMVs that ranged from sumptuous 202 cabinets to cheap 102 cardboard cases.

[Marco Gilardetti]

Thanks for your comments, Carlos. They are indeed interesting machines, but unfortunately extremely rare, also. I would really like to purchase the portable, but I think it will take my whole life and another to track down one.

[Phono48]

its construction - at least the one I have - is not as lousy as Phono says: there is probably some variability in quality depending on the model. All brands produced machines in several degrees of quality depending on the market they targeted, like HMVs that ranged from sumptuous 202 cabinets to cheap 102 cardboard cases.

Whilst I take on board, and agree with your comments regarding the varying quality in relation to cost, Carlos, I really can't let your criticism of the HMV 102s go without comment."Cheap cardboard cases"????? They are solid timber, not plywood, dovetailed at the corners, and the interiors are finished to a much higher degree than the Gilberts are. There was no cardboard used for the tops and bases, it was "Essex board", which was an altogether stronger material when new although I admit it certainly resembles cardboard when it gets damp! With the notable exceptions of model 99, and the very late portables, which were truly awful things, HMV quality was consistent across the whole range of machines.

[Marco Gilardetti]

We're getting off topic, but in turn I seem to disagree with your post, Phono48... I own a 102 and, although it sounds outstandingly well for a portable of its size, the board looks made with a sheet of folded metal, woodgrain painted. The case, although perhaps made with timber or plywood (I never peeled off the fabrikoid to inspect what's beneath), as well as the outward hardware, are definitely not impressive either, and the inner square with the Nipper brand is glued cardboard indeed. The coloured units may be funny to look at, but standard black 102s are really nothing to be impressed by (except, as said, their sound). Comparable Columbia portables like the 112a are a marvel to look at in comparison (at least in my opinion and according to my taste).