Thanks Al, that gives an idea of how many of each were made. Do you think they shared serial numbers? I would guess they did based on the serial numbers you provided which I really appreciate. I asked Ron D and he said deluxe Edison Disc machines started with serial number 1000. That gave us the idea that the 60 and 80 may have started with serial number 1000. Regarding the 60 I am aware of two serial numbers, 1047 and 1080. The 80 I am aware of serial numbers 1015, 1033, and 1071. I am guessing around 100 of each was made. Personally I know of 2 60's and about 6 80's. If anyone would like to add serial numbers on these machines let me know. With so few 60's and 80's around it seems logical that the serial number started with 1000. This was the time when the cylinder phonograph division was mail order. Here is my Diamond A B C article:
Diamond B C and D: The diamond B and C weights are very similar with the C having the indented area for the Amberola lift. On Edison B serial number A12430 Edison used a Diamond C weight on the reproducer. Because the Diamond C has the serial number on the weight I know this came from the factory that way. I just recently noticed the extra weight on the Diamond D and the Heavy weight C is made of lead. I have only 2 of the heavy weight attachments and just the weights from 2 diamond D reproducers and 2 of the heavy weight C reproducers. The serial numbers from the Diamond D reproducers I have seen and my weights are in the 307,000 and 308,000 range. The serial number of the only heavy weight C I know of is in the A31000 range. Fortunately for me the diamond D weights have the serial numbers. I also noticed both the diamond B and C weights started out narrow and were widened. I will have to see if I can tell when this happened. Regarding the 80 I know of one in New Zealand, one in Canada, two that people I of know own in the US and one that sold on eBay. The NZ one has a serial number of 1015. 1033 and 1071 are the serial numbers I have for two of the machines I am aware of. If the serial number started with 1000 then at least 71 were made, but this is merely an uneducated guess on my part. The heavy weight is made universal so it will fit both the diamond D and the heavy weight C. I have not seen any Diamond D or C above 309,000 and they share serial numbers. I have seen a diamond C nickel plated and made of pot metal with a serial number of 307,237 and 308,389 so Edison made the diamond C and D at the same time and from the same or similar castings. Any information on the heavy weight diamond C would be appreciated. My black pot metal one is 306,702. Edison started and ended the C with nickel plating. Some facts about the diamond C: All the tops are made of pot metal, according to the Frow book the sound tubes were brass for about two years. 82804 is the highest nickel plated one I have seen with the brass tube, all of them appear to be nickel plated up to 82804. 80597 and 93169 both have a brass tube and are painted black with the later style weight and 95497 has the pot metal tube and is painted black. Edison never had firm cutoffs so we have an idea where the nickel plated ones end. I do not know when the diamond B A series started, but 109080 is the highest of the regular series. The first ones have the same limit pin as the model O, but by 11965 the later limit pin was used with just over 4 times the threads to prevent the heavier weight from pulling it out. The late O and N reproducers also have the later pin. A31913 is the highest regular diamond B I have seen, A31735 is the heavy weight B I have a photo of. The diamond D weight is wider as is the last diamond C and both are nickel plated. The early diamond C weight weighs 3.6 ounces and is 1.439 inches wide. serial number 4747 nickel and nicely polished casting. The later diamond C weight is 3.7 ounces and 1.578 inches wide. rough cast black one. 123000 estimated serial number. The diamond D weight is 1.6 inches wide as is the final Diamond C weight. With the diamond B there are two different cup sizes, I base this on the outside. The early ones have a gently rise up to A6836 they appear the same. I am rebuilding two that are in the A14000 range and right after the serial number there is a rise of the dome so the serial number barely has room to sit on the flat area after the lettering. From the photo the heavy weight C looks the same as the A14000 ones do. The early Diamond B weights (on 5776) were 1.433 wide, which is the same as the first Diamond C weight. A23634 is 1.496 wide. A12430 has a Diamond C weight that is 1.552 wide. You will note the Diamond B and C weights are similar with the Diamond C not having the pin under the head of the stylus bar and the slot for the Amberola lift. This weight does not have a serial number and it has the hole for the Diamond C limit pin. It is interesting that Edison used this, perhaps he was low on weights for the diamond B. It appears there were two heavy weight C versions. I have two heavy weight C weights and they are different widths. The one is 1.518 wide and the flat spring is not cast into the weight. The heavy weight B in the Frow book appears to be the earlier one as the extra weight on it is not universal. The other is made universal and is 1.614 wide with the flat spring cast into the weight. The later heavy weight fits the universal extra weight. It looks like a diamond D weight but is has no serial number on the weight. My theory now is that Edison made the heavy weight C first then made the Diamond D and the heavy weight C universal. I will never know and may be totally wrong, I might just have a diamond D weight with no serial number. The one heavy weight C weight I have is 1.519 inches wide. Both of the extra weights I have will fit both the diamond B and diamond C weight, there are three slots up front. > To: phono-l@oldcrank.org > From: clockworkh...@aol.com > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:14:19 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Amberola 75 serial numbers > > > The highest Amberola 30 I recorded is just below 344000. The highest > Amberola 50 I have recorded is just over 43000. The highest Amberola 75 in > my data mine is just over 21000. So, Steve Medved's reproducer number is in > the ballpark for production figures... > Regards to all, > Al > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Baron <a...@popyrus.com> > To: Antique Phonograph List <phono-l@oldcrank.org> > Sent: Sat, Aug 24, 2013 7:49 pm > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] Amberola 75 serial numbers > > > Hi Steve ~ Do you have a sense of whether my nickel Diamond C reproducer > 48233 > would be original to my Amberola 50 Serial #5662? Also, any idea when the > Diamond C went from nickel to black paint (year and serial number, more or > less)? > > At a glance it seems the serial number of my Diamond C is way too high for my > machine unless one factors in the greater number of Amberola 30's being > produced. Still seems like a high reproducer number for the 4-digit machine > serial number, but I'd like to get your opinion. This Amberola 50 is > otherwise > one of the best-preserved I've seen, decent and original outside, mint under > the > lid, very quiet and smooth "low mile" motor, etc. > > Andrew Baron > > > On Aug 24, 2013, at 7:40 PM, Steven Medved wrote: > > > It is a fairly low serial number, I worked on Amberola 30 number 137. My > > 50 > is SM - - - 7488. I believe the 30 50 and 75 all had their own serial > numbers > as 137 had reproducer serial number 307 on it. SM is spring motor and number > 137 did not have that on the ID plate. > > > > I believe just under 310,000 of the 30 50 and 75, 60, and 80's were made as > > I > have not seen a Diamond D reproducer over 310,000. > > > > Steve > > > >> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:15:24 -0700 > >> From: john9...@pacbell.net > >> To: phono-l@oldcrank.org > >> Subject: [Phono-L] Amberola 75 serial numbers > >> > >> Hello all > >> I just noticed that the Amberola 75 I purchased at the APS show a couple > >> of > weeks ago is serial numbered SM - - - 7072. The three dashes appear on the ID > plate. I had not noticed this on other machines. Is this a low serial > number? > >> Also, the drawers do not have the clips for record boxes in them as did my > last 75. I thought at first that the drawers were replacements, but on close > inspection they seem to be original, with no screw holes for the clips. Can > anyone enlighten me? Did the earlier machines not have the clips? Or did the > earlier ones HAVE the clips and later ones don't? > >> Thanks > >> John Robles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Phono-L mailing list > >> http://phono-l.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Phono-L mailing list > > http://phono-l.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > http://phono-l.org _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.org
