The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Does any of the members on here know a good way to fix corners on the VV 2-55 orthophonic portable?
Any idea on regreasing the mainsprings, the mainsprings are riveted shut.

Aside from removing the cover and stretching the fabric, or replacing it altogether, there isn't much you can do. The leather-cloth fabric Victor used has a tendency to shrink over time.

If the cover is in otherwise good condition, save for gaps at the corners, another option is to find a suitable piece of leather-cloth, cut it to fit, and glue it to the areas, filling in the gaps. Then, find a heavy duty leather polish, in a matching color, and go over the entire case. I did this with the one I had and it came out looking like new.

As for the spring barrel, about the only thing you can do is drill out the rivets, carefully, and after the spring has been cleaned and re-greased, replace them with screws and bolts.

HTH,
DS

Hi Victrolacollector.

I've had pretty good results using vinyl repair compound to fix the messed-up corners of leatherette. (Actually it was on a Speed Graphic camera, but I imagine it would also work on the 2-55 as well.) Using the right color and graining template, I got a pretty much invisible repair. I can't remember if I got it from a camera restoration supply place or an auto parts store, but it's the same stuff.

Good luck with your restoration!

- Martin

Victor (and Columbia) used a product called "fabrikoid", which was made by DuPont. According to Wikipedia DuPont's first non-explosive product. Does anyone know if fabrikoid or something similar is still available today? The "modern" leatherette feels too much like plastic I think.
Thanks
Andreas

Just throw away that thing and buy an HMV 101 or 102. Those Victor Orthophonic portables were never more than cbeap tin rubbbish. Any HMV portable will comfortably outperform a Victor portable.

syncopeter wrote:Just throw away that thing and buy an HMV 101 or 102. Those Victor Orthophonic portables were never more than cbeap tin rubbbish. Any HMV portable will comfortably outperform a Victor portable.

Here, I have to disagree. I've owned both a 2-55 and a 102. I'd say that, in terms of performance, the 2-55, with it's longer, and more expansive (all steel; not "tin") tone chamber, coupled with the more powerful Orthophonic sound box, was the winner. The "impression of bass" for both the 102 and 2-55 was about the same, but the 2-55 provided more of a mini-concert hall effect--more like a table-top or small cabinet model than a portable.

I do agree, in terms of design, the 2-55 was downright clunky--about ten pounds heavier than the 102, with a rather ugly interior finish (the early model with the "gold" crackle-paint), a badly designed sound box "holder," and a noisy brake that could be heard clicking at the end of the record. (I was lucky that the pot metal components--the sound box and tonearm pivot, were in perfect condition.)

In spite of it's design shortcomings, the 2-55, during the time I owned it, ran virtually trouble-free, and always sounded excellent.

In contrast, the 102, for whatever reason, kept going out of whack. Even though I had the motor completely overhauled and re-greased, by a shop that was noted for its quality work, the motor would start making irritating, intermittent grinding noises, which forced me to pull it every couple of months and re-grease and oil it. I also had to re-grease the spring about every six months or so, because it would start bumping.

In addition, the sound box, an HMV #5b, which replaced the original damaged #16 sound box, was a constant source of irritation, primarily because the needle bar pivot would freeze up or loosen up, depending on the weather conditions. This was in spite of the fact that it had been rebuilt by someone noted for his excellent work restoring sound boxes and gramophones.

All of this caused a friend of mine with whom I commiserated to remark, "that gramophone HATES you!" I agreed, and eventually sold it--at a loss, considering all I put into it.

If I had the funds to acquire another quality portable, I'd probably opt for a good condition 2-55, or failing that, a VV-2-65.

BTW, in case you haven't seen it, there's an interesting article comparing various portables -- The Best Portables of the World --

http://myvintagetv.com/updatepages1/cha ... tables.htm

If you click on the images, they'll take you pages profiling each machine, accompanied by photographs and videos.

Even the restricted audio capabilities of Youtube videos cannot hide the fact that the sound quality of the 2-55 is hardly what one would call second rate:


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvvWPybVe-M[/youtube]

DS

"Just throw away that thing and buy an HMV 101 or 102. Those Victor Orthophonic portables were never more than cbeap tin rubbbish."

Well, that's some nice advice. Nothing more constructive to add?

syncopeter wrote:Just throw away that thing and buy an HMV 101 or 102. Those Victor Orthophonic portables were never more than cbeap tin rubbbish. Any HMV portable will comfortably outperform a Victor portable.

That statement is rubbish. I own a VV 2-65 and it is a well built machine that plays superbly.

One more vote for the superb VV 2-65 - the best small player sound I've ever heard.

Though I share the concern about the corners!

I would also add that throwing away any machine is contrary to the spirit of out hobby....

Nat

It has been interesting to read the various comments. Since I began collecting old phonographs and records while in high school (about 40 years ago), it has been my pleasant experience to have owned several VV 2-55 models. I have one in my small collection at present. Most of them have been great machines.

Yes, there are good HMV portables out there too. We have one at the museum where I work.

I do appreciate the tips on servicing and restoring the portable models too. Thanks for sharing the information.