The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

I am considering buying a HMV suitcase model, I would like it to be a orthophonic type. What is the best one in terms of not being pot metal, riveted springs etc. and of course price ranges?

The HMV 102 is considered the best portable ever made, but they are also the most expensive to buy because everyone wants one. There is no such thing as an HMV with a riveted spring barrel, unlike Victor, so you have no worries about servicing their motors, but the very first 102's used a No.16 soundbox, & this IS riveted together meaning they cant be restored. The 16 was later replaced by the 5a & 5b, so can do that too & the machine will still be classes as authentic.
The only pot metal you'll find on an HMV will be in the soundbox, & in most cases it will only be the back plate. HMV's pot metal was generally of a much better quality than Victor used, so pot metal is seldom a problem either.
If a 102 is over your budget, then I'd go for either a model 97 or 88 if you want a machine with an ortho type soundbox. I own examples of both, and even though the 88 was a cheaper machine, I think it performs better than the 97.
You can also get a 101, but these use a No.4 soundbox with mica diaphragm. They do a great job with electric recordings, and have a larger horn than the 97 & 88, but I still perfer to use my 88 over my 101's and 97.

I hope this will not merely add to the confusion, but I think it is well worthwhile thinking outside the '102 box', especially if budget is any kind of issue. If sound quality and build are your main priorities, and especially if you are just starting out, an hmv 97 or 101 is well worth a spin.

Also worth considering is a similar era Columbia. I own a Columbia 204e with a rebuilt soundbox and it is superb. I have used an hmv 102 and 97 before and the 102 definitely is the rolls royce machine, but my Columbia has never let me down and is pot metal free. The soundbox is very good and handles anything I throw at it (it is orthophonic). HMV and Columbia produced very similar machines as they merged into one in the 1930s and 1940s, and the 204 Columbia is strikingly similar to an HMV 97.

I should probably add here that I'm still quite new to this myself, so some of the more experienced members may well chip in who think differently, but the above has certainly been my experience.

Can't wait to hear what you decide

The very best HMV portable is the 114 / 118 but they are very rare beasts. They are based on the great 102 mentioned above but have 'proper' Victor double-spring motors in them (the '32' as catalogued by Gramophone Co.) and elongated acoustic systems. They also come in hand-polished teak cabinets so you get more quality that way too. But alas, for most collectors, the more humble 102 will suffice and it is a good reliable little machine. I prefer personally the build quality of the 101.

The 'budget models' 94 (export only),87,88 and 97 etc are a bit doggy and lack the same quality. Personally I would avoid them.

The Columbia 204 & the HMV 97 are the same machine, although the earliest 204's use Columbias nickeled "V" shape record holder in the lid, and the 97 used the same record tray as the 102 which sat on the turntable.
These machines, along with the HMV 88, were the result of EMI wanting to cut back on the range of portable models offered by HMV & Columbia, so the same two models can be found under the HMV, Columbia & Odeon names (and probably other brand names acquired in the merger).
Both the 97 & 88 (& 204) used the same motor, auto-brake, tonearm & soundbox (a No.21 I think?).

Minor differences between the two models are that the 97's cabinet is about 1cm shorter, but 1 cm wider than the 88 cabinet, the 97 has a secondary hand brake, and has external needle storage set into the corner of the cabinet (as used on the 101 & 102). The 88 only has the auto-brake, and uses an internal needle cup that is covered by a rubber disc when the lid is closed. Also, the 97 has a 10" turntable, and the 88 has an 8" turntable, which meant the 10" record tray couldn't be used so the 88 has no kind of record storage facility.

The major difference between the two models is that the horn in the 88 is actually slightly longer (although only on one side!), and the horn opening left by the motor board is bigger on the 88.
Both horns really are a poor design, as they simply throw the sound into the cavity under the motor board, but the horn of the 88 projects the sound towards the motor board opening more, & that coupled with the bigger opening does seem to produce better sound.

Below are a couple pics of the 88 & 97 horns "in situ", and a couple showing a spare 97 horn on top of the 88 and a spare 101 horn for comparison. Just for kicks, the last picture shows the 102 horn design. Unfortunately I dont own a 102 YET , so I pulled this one from the RadioMuseum website.
Although the teak models Steve mentioned may be better than the 102, it's doubtful you'd ever find one, even if you travelled to India, so as far as accessible models are concerned, an HMV 102 is still your best bet.
That said, I personally dont see any reason to avoid the cheaper models. I find the tone of my 88 more pleasing than that of my 101's because it isn't quite as loud and in your face, and the small motors are very reliable & have no problems playing a 12" disc from any era.