Cockleshell Monarch Gramophone. Does it look correct?

[Josh Cattermole 1999]

Hi guys. Hope you're all keeping safe.

I was thinking of upgrading my shabby portable 20s gramophone (the spring is knackered and the sound quality is abominable) and saw this Cockleshell Monarch Gramophone for sale and thought it might be a good candidate. looks like a standard one from c.1908. My basic concerns is how original is it. The seller says that the back bracket may have been replated and the handle is not correct (from a later model of HMV gramophone), but the handle works so that's fine. The decal looks like a reproduction, in my humble opinion. If it is a reproduction, is there any way to tell if it may be an early Gramophone and Typewriter machine?. The guy says he has had it rebuilt, so perhaps this is why it looks so new. It needs a horn to go with it, but I can keep my eyes peeled for one of them if I bought this. So basically, is there anything that I'm missing here? Is it all looking correct? Your help would be very much appreciated. Oh, and one last thing, if I may, what sort of value would you place on it? I don't wish to overpay if everything checks out.

Cheers. Josh

[JerryVan]

PM sent.

[soundgen]

yes replated and repro transfer

[Josh Cattermole 1999]

Thanks soundgen. I guess it's not surprising considering it's 112 years old or so. Judt a shame because now I don't know whether the transfer replaced an identical one, or if it's an earlier G&T machine. Any thoughts? Cheers.

[Gramtastic]

The case has been stripped and badly re-varnished by the look of it .....

[soundgen]

Thanks soundgen. I guess it's not surprising considering it's 112 years old or so. Judt a shame because now I don't know whether the transfer replaced an identical one, or if it's an earlier G&T machine. Any thoughts? Cheers.

the soundbox is post 1908 is it not ?

[Josh Cattermole 1999]

Ah! I think you've hit the nail on the head there. didn't realise that. Yes, a G&T one would say just that I assume, so yea, that answers my questions. Cheers

[jamiegramo]

Hi Josh, I also noticed this machine. Soundgen is correct the back bracket has been replated but appears to be an original as I can't see any of the crude casting marks/pits that are often found on repros. One of the fixing bolts ( if not both) looks like a replacement. Yes, the soundbox is probably later than the machine (post 1908 as Soundgen says). Although examples of this model were sold as late as 1910 according to 'His Master's Gramophone'. The corner joint gaps look like they have recent filler.

Normally the Cockleshell Monarch had a double-spring motor. It appeared in catologues as the 'Double Spring Monarch'. That said, single-spring examples are known and I can't see any evidence that this machine has been recently re-motored.

Jamie

[Josh Cattermole 1999]

Thanks jamiegramo. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Yes, it certainly seems to be a late model, owing to the soundbox and the, what I think is, the high serial number which I noticed on the base saying: 81110. Still a cool Edwardian machine and I reckon it'll look good with a horn. I would like to buy it and I think it'll be nice. And, to be honest, as long as it's original and plays a record with good sound quality I don't mind, and at least with a well known brand like this the quality will be assured.

Cheers.

[Josh Cattermole 1999]

And on a matter of practicality. Sorry for my ignorance, but what would be the difference between a single and double spring motor? Would it simply be that a double would be able to play more records with a single wind-up? Why would the Gramophone Company even manufacture a single if a double would be more powerful? Was there a particular reason why a single was made, and if so was there a specific reason which owes to their scarcity?