C an anyone help me with this?

Hello,

I have three 78RPM records that were my fathers and are recorded speeches of "Mister Boston" The Honorable James M. Curley recorded at Radio City Music Hall, New York sometime in the fifties I believe. Have never listened to them because I do not have the proper equipment. Does anyone know if these are collectible? Have tried researching them to no avail, but a nice gentleman led me to this website.

Thank you for any info that you might have.

Hello,

I would be delighted to help you. What you have is 78RPM's. A lot of the new standard machines don't play them, but you can try going on ebay and looking if you have an ebay account.

Also, not to long ago I picked up a record player (brand new) not too long ago at Target. it plays, records (33, 45, and 78), and it also plays CD's, Cassettes, and AM/FM radio. It's made to look like an antique, but it's not. it's a replica, and it sounds pretty nice too and it wasn't that expensive. Also you can look at local thrift shops and flea markets for one of these playes, or you could buy one at Wal-mart, or Target! Hope I was of help to you!

they are collectibles, I couldn't tell you how much they're worth though, It depends on the condition they're in.

Do you know if they are shellac or acitate records? Shellac is what normal 78's are made of, and are hard and heavy, and sort of resemble china. Acitates are usually a thin layer of a black plasticy substance, which is fused to a base material (Usually aluminium) Acitates where used for recording on, by studio's, radio stations etc, and normally, these records are "1 off's", and could be the only recording of the material on them.
Either way, I'm sure these would be collectable, though it's really imposible to put a value on these sorts of records. It really depends on how many people collect the subject matter, and how much they're willing to pay to obtain them. Condition is the most important factor though.
Recently an acitate radio station recording of a speech by a woman running for council here in Australia in the 1950's, sold for around $200. I think a combination of a political speach, it was woman breaking into politics, and that it was a local radio station recording, and posibly the only recording of the campaigne speech was the only reason the price grew so high.
If you intend keeping them, make sure you store them flat in their paper sleeves, in a cool dry place, as the acitate layer has a habit of cracking and lifting from the base material if stored incorrectly. I keep mine in the middle of a pile of records to help them from doing this, as I think the pressure will help stop lifting, and it keeps them at an even temperature to help prevent them crazing.
If you intend selling them, I'd list them on ebay with good clear pictures of each side of every record, under Phonographs &/or 78 records. You might get a pleasant surprise at the price they fetch.

Note that those new "vintage" record players don't come with the 78 stylus.

Record-changer wrote:Note that those new "vintage" record players don't come with the 78 stylus.

And I have no idea what material they use, either - a dealer friend of mine and I were trying to figure it out. Trouble is, it makes both kind of records sound...I dunno, different. My Vestax portable turntable plays all 3 speeds and I can't even use it for 45's or LP's anymore - they sound like garbage. Stll works for 78's, though, and they certainly sound better when pumped through 200-watt speakers.

Record-changer wrote:Note that those new "vintage" record players don't come with the 78 stylus.

And as I found out, some don't even spin at the proper speeds! A few months back, I bought the Crosley "Traveler" model and after test playing several records that didn't sound quite right, I used a strobe disc to check the turntable speeds. According to the disc, all speeds were spinning too fast, so I did manual counts of the rpm (each three times) and found that 78 rpm really spun at 84; 45 rpm spun at 49-50, and 33 1/3 was actually spinning at 37-38 rpm! This was just enough to ruin the sound quality of all my records. Because the turntable is so cheaply made, there's no way to adjust the speeds. I took it back to the store for a full refund.

BTW, I've since spotted a few more Crosleys--various models--and have done my speed test (manual counting of the RPM) where permitted, right in the stores. So far, I haven't found one that isn't spinning at least four or five RPMs faster than it should!

wand143 wrote:

Record-changer wrote:Note that those new "vintage" record players don't come with the 78 stylus.

And I have no idea what material they use, either - a dealer friend of mine and I were trying to figure it out. Trouble is, it makes both kind of records sound...I dunno, different. My Vestax portable turntable plays all 3 speeds and I can't even use it for 45's or LP's anymore - they sound like garbage. Stll works for 78's, though, and they certainly sound better when pumped through 200-watt speakers.

You need a replacement stylus. Diamond styli last for about 400 hours of play before they start ruining records instead of playing them.

The difference in the two styli is groove size. The 78 groove is four times the size of the LP/45 groove.

I still have an old Rheem/Califone classroom record player, the one that sorta floats on its rubber feet and has either a 5x7 fr 4x10 speaker mounted in the front. Still plays fairly decent the last time I checked. Didn't Newcomb(?) make recordplayers? I sorta remember some of the stereo ones that came with 2 big speakers that clipped together like a suitcase. The smaller mono ones had somehting like a 6x9 oval speaker. This was back in the mid-late 60's. They had a manual turntable and were Loud!.

I can also remember back in grade school in the mid 60's when we had those brown suitcase VM record players with the automatic turntables and front mounted speaker. They were tube and sorta reminded me of those automatic recordplayers you would see on a few "M*A*S*H" episodes, but newer. I can't remember the brand but it was popular back in the day. Ronnette, some kind of "ette". --BB