The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I've had this for several years and would appreciate help with identification. Thanks, Jerry Blais

.

I bought the reproducer and the box about five or six years ago. It came from an antique shop in Oregon. My request for information is genuine. Thanks, Jerry Blais

Really???. Sorry Jerry. I would have thought a collector like yourself would have spotted this "repro" a mile away. Not to trash the piece. However, it has to be one of the poorest repro's I've seen.Sorry for the bad news .

Have you seen others like this with the carton? It looks primitive but it does have wear. Of course, it could have been "aged" by hand and not from use. Anybody have any good news? Jerry

I'm a little confused as to what it's supposed to be a replica of. I'd guess the Clark-Johnson sound box? There's one for sale on this site, that the seller states is "original." -- http://www.phonographs.org/store/produc ... jtjdssm6h0




I notice that the one you have, Jerry, has is missing the "guard" affixed over the needle bar, and the back is substantially different--a much more hand-tooled appearance, and the brass is not plated, of course. The patent date information is also much larger and looks to be hand-etched.

If it's a replica of the Clark-Johnson, it really doesn't look all that bad, to my untrained eyes, and would probably still have some value to someone looking for a replacement part who doesn't care if it's original or not.

The front is nicely made but the back looks like it was made by an amateur. It doesn't have the block over the needle bar like the above reproducer. Has anyone seen a box like the one in my original photos?

Well, the one on that other site looks very good. The needle screw is incorrect and I'm a little concerned with the face plate #'s. The reason is the number being that high I would have expected a slightly different stamping on it. BTW, if anyone comes across is Clark/Johnson that has this number. It is a Japanese copy that was made for the trade marks that were sold in the early 80's. Now they are being sold alone and they have a bit of age to them now. They all have this same number on them.

I must agree that the sound box looks like a reproduction. I really can't understand why anyone would have stamped the Feb.19 1895 date so poorly - - it would have been better to simply leave it blank.

The carton looks like it could be genuine. The image is one used by Albert Armstrong's circa 1902-04 incarnation of the Vitaphone, and this machine was later offered as a premium for selling subscriptions, bluing, etc. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of company identification & address - especially in light of the return/exchange instructions. Yet, the carton looks old and the graphics look right. If it's a fake, it certainly wasn't done by the same guy who made the sound box!

George P.

What's odd is the fact that I purchased them together. Jerry