Good "Light Weight" Portable Gramophone models?

[Cjclow05]

Hello everyone, Im new here this is my first post
I got my first gramophone back in March 2025, and since then I have added the following to my collection:

HMV 101 (1925 front winding)
Columbia 112A
Columbia 100 (currently has an incorrect tonearm fitted)
Mignonphone (missing parts)
Kiddyphone (not working properly)
And a unbranded machine with issues (My first one)

I’m now looking for a good lightweight gramophone ideally around half the weight of an HMV 101 — that doesnt require assembly to use. Something more convenient to take out and about. I would use the Columbia 100, but the incorrect tonearm isn’t able to be secured for movement.
What models should i look out for?

P.s anyone with a HMV 99 could u weigh it i was curious on the weight of one compared to say a 101 or 102

[epigramophone]

Welcome to the Forum. You have come to the right place for help and advice.
I would avoid the HMV99, which was a cheap and nasty attempt by HMV to get a slice of the lower priced market.
The HMV97 and it's Columbia clone the 204 are smaller and lighter than the HMV102, but similar in layout.
The Post-War Decca 50 is also of lighter construction than the HMV102, but similar in layout. It has a very good soundbox based on the Pre-War Meltrope III, for which Decca acquired the rights after WW2.

[Inigo]

If you want it with the same sound quality as the 101 or 102 it the Columbia 100, but with the size and weight of this last one, and ready to operate with no assembly... I'm afraid you'll don't find any. I'd suggest to repair the C100 or to get another one. I don't remember of any other machine this size with that same sound and readiness. There are small units of the acoustic era, like the Pixie Grippa, but the sound isn't the same by far...
Think that the size is because of the horn, and this is directly related to the bass rendition capacity. The weight is related also to the spring motor, and a smaller motor will also make it less powerful and means more windings.
If you look at the Paillard or Thorens catalogues maybe there is something like the Columbia 100. But also the 100 is a sound sacrifice when compared to the Columbia 202 or any other with a complete exponential horn inside. Smaller portables trusted on the soundbox, tonearm and a small part of a horn, the sound expelled into the case or similar. The HMV 101, 102, etc have fully developed sizeable exponential horns, and that's why their sound is so good round and full. I suspect the Columbia 100 is already a compromise, but it is well made and sounds acceptably well, but of course it's not comparable to the larger models.

[Cjclow05]

the sound quality would not need to be as good as a 101 or the 112a its just a machine i could take out with me places
the columbia 100 is a lovely little machine but the tonearm mine has is incorrect by far seeming to be a generic from a unknown machine with no branding it has as a no2 soundbox fitted to it
it doesn't seem too common that they come up ? and i haven't seen just the tonearm for sale
the hmv 99 (im unsure what weight it has) seems like it would plenty fine for the job but ofc they dont seem to come up too much

i also do quite like the layout the 99 has ive seen these american machines such as the phonolas which look neat with the same layout

[epigramophone]

Portables are by definition a compromise between portability and sound quality. The bigger the horn the heavier they may be.
The Columbia 100 tonearm had metal fatigue issues, and some were substituted with whatever alternatives would fit.
What was possibly the largest horn ever fitted to a portable was in the Decca 120 and 130 models. Here is my 120, purchased from the family of the original owners, whose Golden Wedding Anniversary gift it was in 1929.

[Steve]

The 99 is rubbish and very cheaply made.

The Columbia 100 is a very common model and therefore I'd just get another one. It seems futile to try to get a replacement tonearm for a common machine that usually sells for peanuts.

[Steve]

Portables are by definition a compromise between portability and sound quality. The bigger the horn the heavier they may be.
The Columbia 100 tonearm had metal fatigue issues, and some were substituted with whatever alternatives would fit.
What was possibly the largest horn ever fitted to a portable was in the Decca 120 and 130 models. Here is my 120, purchased from the family of the original owners, whose Golden Wedding Anniversary gift it was in 1929.

I have every Decca portable model from this era and the earlier 1920s range. I would agree the horn of the 120 and 130 makes these machines quite special. To my ears they are superior to the contemporary HMVs, although the Columbia 202 miraculously gives them a run for their money. A lot of collectors only appear to be interested in HMV though so the Deccas and Columbias are also usually available for a fraction of the price.

[Inigo]

The horn of the Decca is not larger than that of the Columbia 113a or the HMVs and others; the perfection in sound (I guess) comes from the fact that it is a bifurcated horn, split in two symmetric halves reunited at the end flare, which cancels all phase differences etc. The horn of the 101 and 102 and the Columbia 113a are probably a bit longer than that of the Decca, but are asymmetric and so they have phase difference issues. Columbia 202 also has shorter horn, but also bifurcated, split in two halves that reunite in the final flare.

[Nat]

Victor 2-65. Here's a great website to answer your question:
http://myvintagetv.com/updatepages1/cha ... tables.htm

[epigramophone]

The horn of the Decca is not larger than that of the Columbia 113a or the HMVs and others;
[quote=Inigo

epigramophone writes :

Really? Have you measured the cubic capacities of each of these horns? If so, may we see your findings?