[78-L] The 1941 RCA player: it plays both sides

[Malcolm Rockwell]

Wasn't this a common jukebox design? Seems to me I remember Seeco (??) 
used a tonearm/turntable mechanism exactly like this for their 45rpm boxes.
M

*******

Stephen Davies wrote:
> Did this model die off because it was impractical, rather than just too
> expensive?  Did it ever have a name?  Sorry, I can't find a picture of it.
>
> from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765910,00.html
>
> (c)Time magazine
>
> <<<
> New Record Changer
> Monday, Aug. 11, 1941
>
> RCA Victor last week made the biggest phonographic news of the year by
> putting out a machine that could play both sides of a record without
> flipping it over. Up to now, record changers have been of two types: 1) the
> "drop" type, which plays a stack of records butter-side up only; 2) the
> Capehart, which flips records like flapjacks on a griddle. Drawback of the
> drop type: it cannot play alternate sides in sequence. Drawback of the
> Capehart: it is expensive.
>
> The new record changer has a double tone arm, shaped like a big tuning
> fork, whose prongs, each equipped with a needle and pickup, swing out over
> both sides of the record at once. Records are dropped from the stack on to
> a miniature turntable which leaves the grooved surface of both sides
> exposed. The upper side of the record is played by the upper prong. Then
> the record automatically begins to turn backward, and the lower prong plays
> the lower side. Then the record slips down a chute, and No. 2 drops into
> place.
>
> A special feature of the new phonograph is the pickup mechanism of the two
> prongs, so light that it exerts less pressure (1 oz.) than the weight of
> the record. Like the Capehart, RCA Victor's new phonograph is expensive
> ($450). But with both on the market, competition may do a little price
> regulating.
>   
>
> I like the butter side up analogy.  I just can't figure out how they
> clamped the record down to balance it.
>
> Stephen D
> Calgary
>
>