The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Dear All,
the last couple of years have been very busy for me and I have allocated diminishingly amount of time and care to this lovely hobby of our. Seeing this EMG Mk. IX coming up on sale I felt nostalgic and I decided at very last minute to acquire it. The machine arrived in good working order, complete and with the original horn intact - no signs of distortion whether the aperture/mouth or the S shaped part of its body. There are signs of alterations, likely made by the original owner which had the machine brought back to the shop and upgraded from a spring motor to an electric one. These specifically, are minimum alterations (drills) of the motor board to accommodate a Collaro motor type AC47 and Bulgin connector. The original cranking handle escutcheon has been left in place. Interestingly, two of the likely original owner addresses can be found at the bottom of the motor board - the machine belonged at first to A. W. Bickham from 11 [.?.], Hempstead Road, Watford that then moved in 25 Digry Mansions, Hammersmith, London W6. Today I finalised the major restoration - substituting the electrical wiring with a modern but period like ones (black, cloth covered) and an appropriate NOS MK Electric plug, polishing every metal component (screws' heads included), lubing tone arm joints. I also cleaned, colour matched and polished the wood case (addressing scratches and assuring uniformity of the colour between interior and exterior). I will still need to disassemble and restore the soundbox but first couple of tests resulted in overall good and clear sound (despite some minor lack of base response likely due to hardened gaskets and rubber back).

For those who knows more about such machines, here some questions:

1 - When the machine has been likely manufactured? (I believe is a post WWII machine based on the gathered information). The serial number is 1333.
2 - There is also a number 13 at the bottom of the case. Any idea what this represents?
3 - The horn is in very good condition but has been at some point painted over (outside surfaces in brown, inside surfaces in black). I can definitely see in some areas where the pain fell off the original "Python" finishing paper cover. Do you think it worth the risk to try remove the paint?

Attached some pictures, including before and after the wood restoration, the motor, and the original owner's addresses.

Many congratulations on having bought this lovely instrument which will give you endless years of musical enjoyment.

The most important part of a Mk IX has always been the horn and its condition. Yours seems particularly upright---well done. Regarding the paint, I would be inclined to leave the finish as it is so long as the sound satisfies you. You may get into trouble if you try to remove it ? The internal finish should never be reflective or you will lose the magic.

On the dating front, I think you have a pre-WW2 example as, in my experience, the post-war examples had numbers starting with a 2. My own post-war Mk IX (No.2116---8th July 1948) came with collapsed and broken-off horn which was made using very thin newspaper which quickly fell apart. Pre-war units were likely to have been better and more strongly made from a structural point of view when materials were not so hard to come by.

I don't think the number 13 at the bottom of the case signifies anything in particular---possibly something to do with an intermediate manufacturing sequence or subsequent repair ?

Please let us hear the final result when you have had time to rebuild the soundbox ?

Best wishes, Graham.

Thanks Graham as always for your insight.

I am actually very pleased to hear that the machine is pre-WW2 - I thought was a post one because of the lack of mouldings around the bases' feet.

Regarding the horn, please consider the attached pictures. I agree with you on not removing the paint - my major concern is the risk of damaging the horn yes but also lack of uniformity of the underneath python paper cover although the exposed area looks in marvellous condition. Additionally what you mean exactly with "reflectiveness" regarding the paint? (like glossy paint, multiple paint layers)?

I am also debating whether to rebuild the soundbox or not as performs quite well despite the original hardened gaskets - as mentioned there is distinct lack of bass response (especially at low volume). I might upload soon a quick video on Youtube testing the unrestored sounded.

I have another question, that is about the serial numbering impressed at the base of the tone arm. Why do these do not match with the machine's one? The original tonearm has serial 787.

HMV130 wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 8:56 am
I am also debating whether to rebuild the soundbox or not as performs quite well despite the original hardened gaskets - as mentioned there is distinct lack of bass response (especially at low volume). I might upload soon a quick video on Youtube testing the unrestored sounded.

I would recommend to replace the gaskets, it is an easy operation particularly with the EMG soundbox, and it will not only improve the reproduction but also reduce the wear on the records. The other perishable items in these soundboxes are the leather rings: I never replaced mine, they feel still flexible, but if they are also hardened it would be a good idea to replace with new ones, also an easy task.

HMV130 wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 8:56 am
Additionally what do you mean exactly with "reflectiveness" regarding the paint? (like glossy paint, multiple paint layers)?

Yes, experience tells me that the horn needs to be structurally strong enough not to vibrate in general (good wall thickness) but also to have inertness internally so as only to allow the pure, even and uninterrupted propagation and reproduction of the frequencies from the record and nothing else. A reflective glossy paint would be complete disaster bouncing the sound waves all over the place. Slightly stippled paper such as EMG used is ideal---softish surface and non-reflective acoustically.

HMV130 wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 8:56 am
I have another question, that is about the serial numbering impressed at the base of the tone arm. Why do these do not match with the machine's one? The original tonearm has serial 787.

Yes, it does seem odd doesn't it ? Having by now seen and sometimes taken to bits perhaps one hundred EMGs, I have never come across one with a tonearm base flange number which corresponds in any way with the wooden case general manufacture serial number. These two parts would have been made by different craftsmen in diverse places with varying skills. The tonearm engineer would probably have numbered his products simply for his own records and EMG probably kept a general stock and used them on an ad hoc basis ?

HMV130 wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 8:56 am I am also debating whether to rebuild the soundbox or not as it performs quite well despite the original hardened gaskets

I agree with Carlos---new compliant gaskets, and leather/felt washers if necessary, have to be a good idea or you will never derive the magical sound these instruments are capable of delivering.

Congratulations again! It's wonderful to know that this great instrument is is such good hands. Some of us here followed the auction with great interest.

Thanks Andy once again for the kind comments. I just managed to restore the soundbox - replicating as much as possible the original setting including the rubber insulator between the backplate and its three screws. I then tested the soundbox before and after restoration and I think the result is quite good - the sound is fuller and more balanced, with less prominent noise/hiss. Please consider the following link - https://youtu.be/bJlanENVSQk?feature=shared - more than happy to receive any feedback from all of you (although YouTube compression does not help in preserving fully the differences). Additional pictures of the unrestored soundbox attached for your interest.

HMV130 wrote: Wed Jul 02, 2025 4:35 pm Please consider the following link - https://youtu.be/bJlanENVSQk?feature=shared - more than happy to receive any feedback from all of you (although YouTube compression does not help in preserving fully the differences).

The restored soundox shows indeed more bass and eliminates the shrill that was present in the unrestored parts of the clip. Well done!