Collection Emphasis Survey

[antique1973]

I thought it would be fun to have a survey. Rank the following in order of priority
when seeking out additions to your collection. Here are the options:


Cabinet style

Sound quality

Rarity

Earliest Date of production (Oldest)


Here is my order:

1. Rarity
2. Cabinet style
3. Oldest
4. Sound quality

[syncopeter]

For me it is:

1. Sound quality
2. Cabinet style
3. Rarity
4. Earliest Date of production (Oldest)

But then I'm not a true machine collector, I'm first and foremost a music lover. I'd rather have a rough, but great sounding Orthophonic and a lot of records than a rare early Victor horn phonograph and only a handful of records.

[Starkton]

I am also no pronounced machine collector. My approach to the hobby is more comprehensive, therefore I modified the options.

1. Historical significance
2. Rarity
3. Condition (≈ function, sound quality, state of preservation)
4. Earliest date of production/ recording/ pressing/ print

[bbphonoguy]

I've never thought about it. Having stopped collecting machines, there's only two left I want to get; any exposed horn Victor with a tone arm, and an Edison cylinder player with 2 - 4 minute gearing. I guess for me the only two things I consider are looks and usability. I would'nt want a machine I can't listen to, or a machine that would be so cheap or ugly looking that I couldn't have it in the living area of the house.

[FloridaClay]

I agree with one of the others who responded in that condtion is a critical criterion and an extremely importat part of that is originality (absolutely no Frankenphones!). For me it would be:

1. Condition/originality

2. Sound quality

3. Cabinet style

4. Rarity

5. Earliest Date of production (Oldest)

Clay

[EdiBrunsVic]

My order of listing would be:

1. Sound quality
2. Condition
3. Cabinet Style
4. Rarity
5. Earliest date of production

[Nat]

VV-IX took the words out of my mouth - my machines are great, but they are primarily a way to play music. My priorities:

Sound quality
Cabinet style

(Condition and reliability are both things I can fix, so not a priority)

And in a some cases, portability/set-up time.

[coyote]

I'm in accord;

Originality/Condition (with caveat)
Sound Quality
Cabinet Style

Those three come first. Since I'm not adept at serious cabinet work, I like my phonographs to at least look presentable on purchase. Some finish darkening or scratches/worn veneer are fine, just so it doesn't look like it should be in a scap heap. Mechanics I can do, but I don't want to spend time hunting to replace obviously incorrect parts if they're not readily available. Rarity/production date are not concerns. If I happen to like something that is rare, that's just coincidence.

[antique1973]

That's a good idea to add condition or other criteria if desired. I knew I should have added more criteria but that was all
my brain would come up with at the time.


Here is my revised order:

1. Rarity
2. Condition
3. Cabinet style
4. Oldest
5. Sound quality

[Retrograde]

Given the five options, I would rank them as this:

1. condition (most of the time I prefer complete machines needing only modest restoration)
2. cabinet style (it has to appeal to me, no ugly machines)
3. sound quality (not all that important, but I like a decent sound)
4. oldest (usually means more $$$, I'm happy with later editions)
5. rarity (goes hand-in-hand with number 4)