Thanks, Walt for this enlightening piece of writing. If a book were to be published, featuring informative and well-written tidbits of phono subject matter, this entry would surely appear in it. Your observation: even though you see what > appears to be "patched" sections, is that if you ignore the grain > patterns, > you will see some uniformity in the shapes and locations of the pieces > themselves. is the most convincing argument for the construction of John's horn being 100 years old and not recent.
Best, Andy Baron On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Walt wrote: > John, > > The picture you showed of the other (Marty's) horn is just another > variation. Moments ago a guy brought me, wouldn't you know it, an > oak #30 > horn. And while it has a different character than yours (they all > do) it is > quite similar. But I think what is distracting or at least > exacerbating the > randomness of yours has to do with the fact (it least it appears > so) that > someone stripped the horn and did not bother to apply shellac. By > lightening > the overall color and removing the glow that the original amber > shellac > would have provided, the rugged nature of the assembly is more > obvious (even > though it is there hiding underneath all the time). My criticism > was of the > very obvious amateurish attempt of someone to repair the (lengthwise) > separations. These were not properly reattached and it is why I > called them > "gaping wounds". > > > WOOD HORN CONSTRUCTION STUFF: > > The reason that previously I mentioned the #30 being 2-ply versus > the 3-ply > of the spear-tip is significant. Andy had mentioned that he thought > there > might be different manufacturing standards that are the reason for > differences between wooden horn types, but I rather think that the > difference is not one of varying standards, but of the > manufacturing process > itself for a given type. This will make sense briefly. > > The total thickness of the #30 2-ply is about 1/16" whereas the 3-ply > spear-tip is about 3/32". But the thickness of the horn is not the > only > factor affecting strength. Because only 2 layers of thin veneer are > used in > the #30, the primary strength of the horn body is achieved partly > from the > exponential shape but mostly by applying the oak sections in a > cross-grain > fashion. That is, no two side-by-side sections have the same grain > lines and > neither should there be grain running in the same direction when > the inside > and outside pieces are ultimately glued together. (Think of it > something > like modern plywood or perhaps the OSB concept.) Part of what you are > seeing, especially in the pictures that show the decal "side", is the > narrowing of the horn which necessarily requires the use of > increasingly > narrower sections of tapered veneer. This is what creates the > "patched" look > that you mention. It is present all over the #30 body but is always > more > pronounced as you approach the narrow taper. > > Here is the meat of the differences between the two types. It is > difficult > to think of veneer as a structural component because we are so used to > seeing it used in a purely decorative sense on top of a substrate > material. > Nevertheless, the #30 horn is a fine example of using veneer in > this way. > And, with that in mind, it is easy to see why the thin tapered > sections are > more numerous as the horn narrows. A conical horn is easy to make > out of > veneer, but something resembling an exponential curve like the #30 > is, well, > exponentially more difficult. And there is somewhat of a practical > limit as > to how selective you can be when choosing and cutting veneer that > must be > simultaneously decorative AND structural. To create a #30 horn that > has the > more stave like appearance is certainly possible given a wealth of > veneer to > choose from, but it is exceedingly time consuming. I believe that Don > Gfell's #30 equivalent horns have a tendency to look more uniform > than the > Victor horns because he does take the time to select his grains. The > pictures you sent of Marty's horn are proof that Victor also did > the same > thing. But you really need to study the grain lines to understand the > difficulty in creating the horn. Something to note, even though you > see what > appears to be "patched" sections, is that if you ignore the grain > patterns, > you will see some uniformity in the shapes and locations of the pieces > themselves. > > The spear-tip is not only a significantly stronger, larger and > heavier horn, > but because it uses 3-ply construction, it truly has a substrate > (in this > case, the middle) layer which is built upon on both surfaces. In > the case of > the #30 2-ply horn each and every piece of veneer represents one > decorative > surface of the horn. But with the 3-ply scheme of the spear-tip, > the middle > layer needs ONLY to be strong (and not pretty) because it's > particular grain > alignment will never been seen. These center substrate layers of the > spear-tip look very random or "patched", to use John's term. This > process > allows the inner and outer decorative surfaces of the spear-tip to, > more or > less, be chosen for appearance sake alone. > > If you put several #30 horns next to several spear you will definitely > observe that the overall flow of the grain of the spear-tip veneer > tends to > flow with the overall length of the horn whereas the flow of grain > on the > #30s will vary quite a bit. As a spear-tip narrows toward the > throat you > will only see (unless it has been repaired) continuous strips of > veneer that > run from the bell end to the bayonet. Cross graining of the veneer > pieces is > not necessary on the outer layer of the spear-tip because it has a > middle > substrate layer upon which the inner and outer layers rest. This is > the > primary reason that a spear-tip horn features veneer that is often > considered much prettier than the #30s. (Although, I personally > enjoy the > doubly difficult engineering/art feat involved to make the #30.) > > As you stare at the #30 you have, pretend you have the luxury of > picking and > choosing long pieces of veneer with straighter flowing grains that run > exclusively front to back. You would start with a nice inside > surface chosen > for its appearance only, then apply the substrate (core) layer in > cross > grain fashion with concern only for cross sectional strength, and > then you > could pick and choose the outer layer for pure beauty since the > strength of > the horn is already fundamentally established. > > If you could apply just one beautiful layer over what you see on > the #30 you > have, almost all of the "patched look" that you observe would be > hidden. And > that is essentially what is (visually) accomplished with the spear-tip > construction. But, let's leave that 3rd layer on the spear-tips and > not > "retrofit" or "upgrade" any of the others <wink>. > > Gotta get to work....Broken motors await me.... > > Walt > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:phono-l- > [email protected]] On > Behalf Of john robles > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:54 AM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Victor Smooth oak horn question - sort of > urgent > > Wow, it seems so...patched together! I always thought that the > smooth horn > was made of staves like a barrel, so to speak. There is another oak > horn on > ebay that doesn't seem to have the triangular portions. Mine > doesn't have > them all the way around, just most of the way. The inside of the > horn looks > almost perfect. > J > > Walt <[email protected]> wrote: > The seams (based on your pictures) are the most significant areas > that > need > repair. The triangular sections are correct. Remember that the #30 > is a > 2-ply horn, not 3 like the spear tip. > > W > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:phono-l- > [email protected]] On > Behalf Of john robles > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:15 PM > To: Antique Phonograph List > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Victor Smooth oak horn question - sort of > urgent > > QUestion - maybe I have been wrong about this - is it only the > seams that > need repair? I thought that all those long, triangular pieces on > the horn > were patch jobs. Maybe I am wrong. I saw another horn tonight that > has those > too....Can anyone clarify? > THanks > John > > [email protected] wrote: > That's one opinion of course. You did get the horn at a good price > ($695) > which is well below what better condition horns are going for. Even > if you > spend $400 to get it repaired properly, which you will need to do, > you still > > will not have too bad of a deal. His description is incorrect and > misleading, as Walt says, but he does say in addition "Also a few > seams > reglued" which is correct. Almost all wood horns on eBay have > defects or > damage of some kind, and they seem to be going for well over $1,000 > anyway. > Find out what an expert will charge to do the repairs before > sending it > back. That's my opinion. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "john robles" > To: "Antique Phonograph List" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:05 PM > Subject: RE: [Phono-L] Victor Smooth oak horn question - sort of > urgent > > >> Good advice, Walt, and I think I will follow it! >> John >> >> Walt wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> I looked at your set of pictures and compared them to those on the >> eBay >> listing along with the description. He describes it in the eBay >> auction as >> having "TINY TINY REPAIRS WHICH ARE NOT EASILY VISIBLE WITH THE >> NAKED EYE" >> (emphasis: his). But your pictures tell a different and true >> story. If he >> had left the text as saying merely "tiny tiny repairs" I don't >> think you >> could really complain because subjective language is a tough thing >> to nail >> down, but he states definitively that the repairs "are not easily >> visible >> with the naked eye". Maybe he is going blind - I don't know. But, >> my eyes >> are pretty naked and those gaping wounds in that horn are >> egregious. If he >> would just have dropped the word "NOT" in the sentence, it would be >> accurate. >> >> That horn needs at least $400 in repairs and that assumes that the >> joints >> that were botched would easily come apart (and I suspect from the >> pictures >> that they might just jump at the opportunity). I'd pay about $300 >> to $350 >> for a horn that was damaged like that only because I can do the >> repairs >> correctly and could probably turn it around for a decent profit. >> >> If I were in your boat, I think I would send it back...Even if the >> guy >> gave >> you a $300 refund or something on that order, you would still need >> to have >> it repaired the right way. >> >> Walt >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:phono-l- >> [email protected]] >> On >> Behalf Of john robles >> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:32 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Phono-L] Victor Smooth oak horn question - sort of urgent >> >> Hi All >> This is such a great forum, and there's so much knowledge here...that >> Edison Wrench discussion was really lively! >> This time it is simpler. I bought an oak horn from eBay, from a >> guy with >> 100% positive feedback, largely on phonograph items, and a 7 day >> return >> policy which I am afraid I may have to use. I received the horn >> today, but >> in spite of his saying there were a few minor repairs virtually >> invisible >> to >> the eye, it seems to me there are many major repairs totally >> visibile. >> Problem is they all look old and the color match is good. But the >> patterns >> of the angles at which the wood comes together don't make sense to >> me. >> Check >> the pics at this link and tell me if I should send it back right >> away!! >> http://s197.photobucket.com/albums/aa39/john9ten/Oak%20Horn/ >> Thanks >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: >> 7/9/2007 >> 5:22 PM >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Phono-L mailing list >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: > 7/9/2007 > 5:22 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: > 7/10/2007 > 5:44 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
