The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

In the Columbia Phonograph Companion, those two models are shown with a back mount attached to the metal bedplate, and a tone arm elbow that looks similar to a Grafonola. See the picture below.
Several examples I've seen in person have back bracket and tone arm arrangement similar, if not identical to the BI and BY. See the second photo below.
So, is there any information explaining the difference?

I've always thought of the BII as having the back bracket and tone arm similar to the slightly earlier BI or BY. I think an original catalog would show the 60H as having the Grafonola tone arm.

I've always thought the translation for 60H is:

60H = $60 Horn (Grafonola)

So there's your trivia answer for the day. Name a model of Grafonola with an outside horn. There were a couple of lesser models in the line with similar tone arms

Can you name a Victrola model with an outside horn?

Jerry B.

Jerry B. wrote:I've always thought of the BII as having the back bracket and tone arm similar to the slightly earlier BI or BY. I think an original catalog would show the 60H as having the Grafonola tone arm.

I've always thought the translation for 60H is:

60H = $60 Horn (Grafonola)

So there's your trivia answer for the day. Name a model of Grafonola with an outside horn. There were a couple of lesser models in the line with similar tone arms

Can you name a Victrola model with an outside horn?

Jerry B.

Yes. A VV-XXV.

Yes. A VV-XXV.

Bingo!!! The later School Model Victrola XXV. There will more than coal in your stocking.

Jerry B.

"I've always thought of the BII as having the back bracket and tone arm similar to the slightly earlier BI or BY. I think an original catalog would show the 60H as having the Grafonola tone arm."

In the Columbia Phonograph Companion, both the BII and the 60H are shown with the back bracket arrangement and tone arm as below in the first picture.

Most of the ones I've seen are like the one in this second picture.

Sure wish I knew how this evolved and when the change was.

I think that the book is incorrect. I have a BII and the back bracket is identical to that of my late BI, but the tone arm is longer on the BII and the reproducer is different as well. I suppose that the late BII and the 60H could be the same. The answer may be lost to time unless someone has some Columbia documentation or a catalog that shows a BII with 60H features. The 60H is a cool oddity. If we didn’t know that they are authentic, many of us would think that it was a crapophone, or at least a marriage of parts.

I actually like the late-model-Grafonola style elbow. Wish my 1909 BN was like that--or I'd held out for a later model. (Not knocking the BN, but it's a very simple machine. Good sound though)

There was one of these with a big mahogany horn at a swap meet and I would love to have purchased it...a Model 60H. Those are stunning!

VanEpsFan1914 wrote:I actually like the late-model-Grafonola style elbow. Wish my 1909 BN was like that--or I'd held out for a later model. (Not knocking the BN, but it's a very simple machine. Good sound though)

There was one of these with a big mahogany horn at a swap meet and I would love to have purchased it...a Model 60H. Those are stunning!

I didn’t mean for my comment to sound negative. I think the 60H is very desirable and I like things that are a little odd. I would love to have one myself.

Not negative to me, but informative. As you know the sound is dependent on the type, or style reproducer. So far, there appears to be three evolvements of the BI and BII reproducer. I've never compared them sound wise, perhaps you, or someone else, has some input on that?

I looked at the images and descriptions in the Columbia Phonograph Companion Volume II. The image of a BII on page 86 is the same image as the 60H on page 96, (the size and darkness are different but the grain patterns are the same). I may be wrong, but I don’t think that the image on page 86 is a BII.