I just bought this Frank Seaman talking machine ad.

[1923VictorFan]

I wasn't sure what category to post this in but I wanted to share it because I have never seen one before. It came from an 1897 paper (I have the papers name written down somewhere) I'm also thinking that an ad for one of Frank Seaman's "pirated" products might be uncommon. Even if not I think its cool knowing how Seaman was such a slimmey &#$@. I got it for just $8.00 and plan to get it matted & framed.

[phonogfp]

Whoa! Whoa!

Frank Seaman was the legitimate distributor of Berliner Gramophones from late 1896 until early 1900. The machine shown in the ad isn't a "pirated" product, but a legitimate hand-driven Berliner with a governor designed by Alfred Clark, and manufactured by the Berliner Gramophone Company. This machine is quite rare today - - more so than other Berliner hand-driven models.

Why do you believe that Seaman was such a "slimmey &#$@"? He certainly was a relentless businessman, and he knew how to make a buck (which these days some equate to criminal behavior), but slimy? Seaman's supplier (Berliner Gramophone Co.) was overcharging him for machines, and Berliner's attorney (Thomas Parvin) had a financial interest in Eldridge Johnson's patent. The more money Johnson charged for Gramophones, the more money Parvin made. Seaman submitted several less-expensive models of disc-playing machines to the Berliner Gramophone Co. (as allowed in Section Eight of Seaman's contract), but the Berliner management (especially Thomas Parvin) didn't want to lose its kick-backs. So they refused to abide by the contract they signed. Now who was slimy? What was Seaman supposed to do? Roll over and say "Thank you sir - may I have another?"

What Seaman ultimately did was legal, and within his rights as stipulated in his contract. He also made possible the Zonophone - a machine far better than the Berliner Gramophone - that sold for less than the Berliner. Seaman offered better value to the public. Slimy? I suppose the Berliner management thought so.

Sorry for the soapbox - - I'm just tired of reading the same fallout of biased/sloppy 1950s scholarship repeated for decades, even after the truth has been published. I'll be good now...

George P.

[Starkton]

I couldn't agree more, George.

I would like to add that the gramophone gained a foothold [not "foodhold", sorry about my English] in the market in October 1896 for three reasons, all of equal importance:
1. Spring motor of Montross with Johnson's governor added;
2. Shellac compound as pressing material; and
3. Enlargement of the role of Frank Seaman

[1923VictorFan]

Both of your comments are well taken and, believe it or not, appreciated. It seems I have once again read inaccurate and/or biased info online and taken it for fact.
What I have seen describes him as violating both Berliner and Johnsons patents causing all 3 to spend lots of $ and several years in court making Johnson and Columbia the ultimate winners.
Don't worry. I don't take your corrections personal. If anything I just get frustrated by all of the inaccurate stuff I am finding out there in cyber space. With little money for books and a somewhat small town-ish library system the internet is usually my primary source of info.
Just curious though. Is this ad something found frequently or did I find something scarce? It set me back $5 and I plan to just put it into a floating frame for display.

[phonogfp]

Erich,

It's a great ad - - I considered bidding on it myself, but checked my collection first and found I already had one (there's another of those senior moments!). That ad doesn't turn up often, and I like the pink paper. As I wrote earlier, very few of those Clark machines were manufactured, so it's nice to see one in an ad. Definitely suitable for framing (the "digital frame" looked great).

As for information on the internet, it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. We can Google any U.S. patent in seconds. We can consult the Edison Papers Project at Rutgers University to peruse thousands of original documents. We can even garner information from eBay when sellers post decent scans of literature or in-focus photos of machines. But unfortunately, anyone with a computer can post whatever he/she wishes on a website without peer review or opportunity for rebuttal/debate (as we have on this site). I've visited dozens of antique phonograph sites, and they range from excellent to worthless. It's really a case of caveat emptor. The bottom line is that you can't believe everything you read.

I hope you didn't interpret my earlier post as an attack - it certainly wasn't meant to be. My concern is historical accuracy (some may call it the "truth") and I have absolutely no ego invested in it. When I'm corrected (as has happened here on more then one occasion), I'm truly grateful. I'm interested in what really happened - not my opinion of what happened. When I'm wrong, I see no shame in admitting it and more importantly learning the truth - and passing it on.

I was inspired long ago by the prescript of a 1973 book titled Clockwork Music by Arthur Ord-Hume. It reads;

A Persian philosopher, being asked by what method he had acquired so much knowledge, answered, "By not being prevented by shame from asking questions when I was ignorant."

I admire such humility and a sincere quest for knowledge, and I continue to try to emulate that Persian philosopher.

You can read an online article that touches on Seaman's activities at www.antiquephono.org. Click on "Sound Box" and download an issue for free. In it, there's an article on the Gramophone in 1900 - I don't recall the exact title - but it's reasonably accurate.

George P.