Model R reproducer: is it always numbered?

[Menophanes]

I have long been a devotee of Edison's Model R reproducer, which enables the owners of older machines to get the very considerable benefit of the larger diaphragm of the Model N etc. without having to fit a new carrier-arm. I bought one in about 1980 and had to sell it about thirty years later, but last April I acquired (from the same dealer!) a second example, and I have just today bought a third. My purpose in having two of them is to keep a 2-minute stylus permanently fitted to one – the R is perfectly compatible with this – and a 4-minute to the other, instead of constantly having to change the stylus over; every time I do this I am convinced that the tiny stylus-bar screw will fall on the floor, never to be seen again.

All three Rs have had a tube-plate of the stepped type, similar to that of the Model O, rather than the conical pattern usually found on the Model N. However, the latest one shows what may be an important difference from the other two in that it has a serial number, 7480, stamped under the word REPRODUCER, whereas the other two were not numbered at all. (In addition, the lettering around the tube is much bolder in the latest specimen.) This makes me wonder if my original R and the first of the two new ones were in fact relatively modern copies while the latest example is genuine. Does anyone here know if there are such things as copies of the Model R, or if an unnumbered one can be authentic? It scarcely matters, since the unnumbered unit is a perfectly serviceable component, but I should like to know exactly what I have got.

Oliver Mundy.

[Menophanes]

Here are images of the two Rs which I now have. In every case the numbered one is on the left.

I believe the fact that the lettering is differently aligned, so that on No. 7480 the word REPRODUCER is rotated 120° to the right, is a false clue; the three screws are equidistant, and so this could easily have happened if the unit were dismantled and then reassembled with the tube-plate at the wrong angle. As its function is not affected, I am not disposed to meddle. However, there are some real differences. No. 7480 is about 1mm deeper overall; its lettering is bolder and more deeply impressed; its retaining-screw for the stylus-bar enters from the opposite side – from the left if the unit is held with the weight uppermost and the tail away from you; its three body-screws are smaller; and the aperture in the body under the tail of the weight is considerably narrower.

Unfortunately I have not kept any pictures of my first Model R; I do remember, though, that its alloy tube-plate was rather rough and pimply, like that of No. 7480, whereas the other one is quite smooth.

There is a difference in performance too. No. 7480 has a much rounder tone, with more bass, and transmits much less in the way of surface noise; on the whole I greatly prefer it to the other, although the latter sometimes deals more successfully with very loud or high notes. I might compare the unnumbered R to a Victor/H.M.V. Exhibition sound-box and No. 7480 to the same company's No. 4.

Until further information emerges, I shall assume that the unnumbered item is a modern reproduction. This may mean that when my collection is sold somebody will get a bargain, receiving an original for the price of a copy; but as this will not happen until I am either deaf or dead, I shall not care.

Oliver Mundy.

[rgordon939]

The top is definitely a reproduction, probably one of Justin's.

Rich Gordon

[Menophanes]

Thank you, Rich. Are you suggesting that what I shall henceforth call the 'Justin R' is a marriage of a genuine weight and a modern body? I did wonder if this was possible, since the two weights are identical in texture, colour and detail, all the differences (apart from that odd matter of the stylus-bar screw) being on or in the body of the unit. (I forgot to mention that in the 'Justin' the threaded brass ring which retains the diaphragm lacks the radial ribbing found on the other.)

The absurd thing is that the genuine R cost less than half the price of the other, bought on the same site (the obvious one) and from the same vendor just six weeks earlier!

Oliver Mundy.

[phonojim]

That is often the case these days because of potmetalphobia. I have seen Paul Baker repros bring more money than originals. This is for a good reason; because potmetal reproducers can be difficult to impossible to disassemble for repair. The same goes for reassembly. I rebuilt an S with a brass bottom and a potmetal top. Separating the two was extremely difficult and involved several overnight stays in the freezer, followed by a few seconds of prying before it warmed up enough to seize again. I could feel microscopic movement the first couple of times before it began to move noticeably and it took a few more tries after that before it came out. That was just the beginning because removing the ring, chasing the threads, filing the body to be a slip fit in the brass, etc. all needed to be done before I could begin to think about reassembly. I did manage to reassemble it and it performs very well, but I also know how lucky I was to be able to salvage the potmetal top at all. Given the cost of this work, plus parts, I can see why someone would pay more for a new one or one rebuilt with a new top.

Jim

[rgordon939]

The new steel tops run about $110 on eBay. Justin's seller name on eBay is "ladanjus".

Rich Gordon

[Menophanes]

Thank you both. I have made a a note of Justin's eBay store (JAS Antiques) for future reference. He seems not to be listing any R parts at present, but I shall probably treat myself to one of his Automatic Reproducer copies once I have recovered from what has been a considerable buying spree this year. I do know how pot-metal can behave, and it is certainly true that when I removed the screws on my original R and made a cautious attempt to separate it I was immediately made aware that the parts did not want to move, whereas the other one came apart as smoothly as I could wish.

Oliver Mundy.