J.j.vickers,edeophone

[bazza]

I have an Edeophone No.56309,it has a J.J.Vickers label stuck on the back of the padboard and J.J.Vickers stamped on the other end,it also has anumber in gold impressed in the bellows frame which is rd129662 would this instrument ba fitted with Vickers reeds.Is there anyway of dating the instrument from the Vickers number.Thanks

[Cream-T]

I think the standard reply is "Could you show us some pictures, please?"...

[Stephen Chambers]

I think the standard reply is "Could you show us some pictures, please?"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that won't be necessary this time ...

 

As I posted recently "assuming that they started numbering (in their own right) at 6000 in the Autumn of 1858, and had reached (almost) 69000 by the time they closed down, around the Summer of 1933, then Lachenal's made an average of 840 Englishes per annum." So simply on statistics, 56309 should date from about the Summer of 1918, but that's only in theory ...

 

RD 129662 is the Registered Design number for the Edeophone, entered on 27th July 1889, and it was originally to be found on the bellows of all Edeophones.

 

J. J. Vickers sold both new and second hand Edeophones.

[bazza]

I think the standard reply is "Could you show us some pictures, please?"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that won't be necessary this time ...

 

As I posted recently "assuming that they started numbering (in their own right) at 6000 in the Autumn of 1858, and had reached (almost) 69000 by the time they closed down, around the Summer of 1933, then Lachenal's made an average of 840 Englishes per annum." So simply on statistics, 56309 should date from about the Summer of 1918, but that's only in theory ...

 

RD 129662 is the Registered Design number for the Edeophone, entered on 27th July 1889, and it was originally to be found on the bellows of all Edeophones.

 

J. J. Vickers sold both new and second hand Edeophones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thanks Stephen ,as regards to the reeds would they be made by Lachenal or Vickers

[red]

Stephen Chambers wrote

 

"As I posted recently "assuming that they started numbering (in their own right) at 6000 in the Autumn of 1858, and had reached (almost) 69000 by the time they closed down, around the Summer of 1933, then Lachenal's made an average of 840 Englishes per annum." So simply on statistics, 56309 should date from about the Summer of 1918, but that's only in theory ... "

 

Would it not be more statistically accurate to apportion the total in the same ratio as Wheatstone sales for this period? That is, take the the Wheatstone total for the period, apportion each of the annual totals as a ratio of the whole and apply it to the Lachenal total. It must be more accurate as it would give a better reflection of demand per annum.

Edited October 12, 2005 by red

[Stephen Chambers]

thanks Stephen ,as regards to the reeds would they be made by Lachenal or Vickers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an imponderable, and why I mentioned that :

J. J. Vickers sold both new and second hand Edeophones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've mentioned previously that Vickers' advertised themselves as reed makers, and commented that the reeds in instruments they sold seem to be of superior quality. But I very much doubt if they would have replaced the reeds in secondhand instruments that passed through their hands. On the other hand, it is possible that they made reeds for Lachenal's ...

[Stephen Chambers]

Would it not be more statistically accurate to apportion the total in the same ratio as Wheatstone sales for this period? That is, take the the Wheatstone total for the period, apportion each of the annual totals as a ratio of the whole and apply it to the Lachenal total. It must be more accurate as it would give a better reflection of demand per annum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Possibly, though probably not as, for a start, the two firms were run very differently and tended to have different markets, Wheatstone's being more "craft" makers of high quality instruments, mainly for domestic consumption, and Lachenal's being mass-producers with world markets to supply. Secondly, we know from the Wheatstone ledgers that concertina numbering can be very erratic (and especially Lachenal's production for Wheatstone's in the 1850's/'60's !), instruments sometimes being sold years out of sequence. And, of course the First World War would have had a very dramatic effect, but probably more so on Lachenal's export business. (And bear in mind that the Lachenal family changed the spelling of the family name to La Chenal at that time, to sound more French in the face of anti-German sentiment.)

 

Anyway, the receipt for #58887 has survived, so we know that it was sold on July 10th 1922, whilst the "theoretical" date would be about September 1921, so it doesn't seem too far out for that one ...

 

Otherwise, I've offered some "pointers" in my "Some Notes on Lachenal Concertina Production" article, and there is a project going on to collect Lachenal serial numbers, sometimes with receipts, so maybe we'll come up with something better yet ?

Edited October 12, 2005 by Stephen Chambers

[wes williams]

Would it not be more statistically accurate to apportion the total in the same ratio as Wheatstone sales for this period? ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Possibly, though probably not as, for a start, the two firms were run very differently and tended to have different markets...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been studying the English serial numbers recently, and they don't fit either a linear projection or Wheatstone related production rate. Most notable is that production rate seems to halve for about a decade after the firm left Lachenal family ownership (1873-1885), which could suggest that Lachenal & Co. was initially suffering from cash starved production. I hope to publish details in an update to the 'Dating' article fairly soon.