Rich, It was registered, it cost me $7.00 six years ago to send the letter registered mail versus the 55 cents normally it would have cost. It was a postal money order I sent to Peru and it took me almost a year to get the money order replaced, I finally spoke with a lady who told me to call her friend, her friend handled many people like me who had waited over six months after filing a form that the money order was lost in the mail. The guy who charged me $7 told me that it could be traced if lost. The next people who spoke with me told me the guy had made a mistake, but would not refund my $7 I paid for a service I never received. Back then I did not have internet and could not research the website. Steve
> Steve:> If you will go to the USPS web site and read the US Mail Manual > sections relating to registered mail and > how it is handled you will find > that either you did not send it REGISTERED or you were flat out lied to. > IF > you have a REGISTERED MAIL receipt then you can collect and registered mail > is signed for and > closely tracked. It is also totally segregated from all > other classes of mail.> > Delivery confirmation is NOT registered mail.> > > Rich From waltsomm...@comcast.net Wed Dec 27 17:33:01 2006 From: waltsomm...@comcast.net (Walt) Date: Wed Dec 27 17:34:24 2006 Subject: Obscure-A-Finish: Sub:RE: [Phono-L] GOW finish In-Reply-To: <000c01c72a17$0e598270$6501a...@your4105e587b6> Message-ID: <012a01c72a20$1f1a8420$0200a...@daddell> Hi Sean, I must have seemed harsh. Howard's doesn't "restore" the finish - it "obscures" it. Maybe "Howard's Destroy-A-Finish" is too harsh and "Howard's Obscure-A-Finish" is better. But here is the point better and more caringly made: Think about why a finish often looks dull in the first place. There are many factors, but assuming that it is not badly gouged or scraped, or has veneer flapping in the wind, the culprit is usually oxidation and dirt. And that is why people go after products like Howard's. Covering over dirt and oxidation, at best, make the cabinet look unnatural, albeit it will look much brighter for a little while. A "Howard's treated" cabinet does not look anywhere near as good a properly restored cabinet - I promise. I, too, have seen Howard's used and someone even talked me into using it once or twice, but it falls way short of what the cabinet can really be. It certainly does have the ability to make a finish look like something that it really isn't, but it is not a substitute for good cleaning or careful restoration. Howard's is, to its credit, a polymer, which means that thankfully it does not bind very well to the finish itself. I don't think you could harm the finish with the Howard's (unless your rag is too coarse or dirty) but I can almost guarantee that if you properly clean your cabinet that you would be blown away with the results. Howard's, as well as other colorants out on the market, certainly can create an appearance that looks better than a dirty cabinet, but by cleaning your cabinet the right way (and it will take hours and hours on a 10-50) you achieve something that is genuine. Howard's, as a polymer, drags a film of plastic (sort of), across your cabinet and over all the dirt and oxidation. It simply hides the dirt and defects partly because it has tint, but also because it blocks light. It's like thinking to clean a dirty hardwood floor by painting all of the dirt the same color as the wood. I have a better recommendation for your B-80. Email me off-list if you are interested. Walt -----Original Message----- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Sean Miller Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:28 PM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: RE: [Phono-L] GOW finish Howard's "Destroy-A-Finish"??? Walt, I'm curious why you say that because I have had some very good luck with Howard products (including that) on a few otherwise hopeless machines I've owned (or still own - it brought my 10-50 back to life and it still stuns me to remember the "before") Can you share any specific experiences or reasons why not to use "Destroy-A-Finish", please? I'd like to know if I could be harming mine when I have used it in the past, plus I have an Edison B-80 that I've been thinking would benefit in no other way but from a thorough once-over with it... Sean -----Original Message----- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Walt Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:05 PM To: 'Antique Phonograph List' Subject: RE: [Phono-L] GOW finish For those machines that I refer to by personal experience, it is clearly the case that the finish came as Golden Oak Waxed directly from the factory. The data in "Look for the Dog" is referring to factory finishes (that is, how they left the factory) and is an objective account based on actual production records. I don't know what you mean by "previously stripped." Are you asking if the cabinet was originally finished with shellac which was then removed while it was still in the factory (and before it was ever shipped)? If so, the answer is, "definitely not." Aside from the technical impossibilities, I do not believe that Victor's manufacturing process would have accommodated such an expensive process for producing what is intended to be an economical finish. The idea of stripping a cabinet at the factory only to then wax the stained finish is radically counterproductive as I estimate it. An old shellac/varnish finish can be removed, but it is impossible to remove every trace of it - totally impossible. This is one of the ways I am able to tell if a finish is original and even what the finish originally was if it has been redone or coated at some later point. A minuscule amount of shellac will always remain in some crease, open pore, nail hole, seam, etc. Once the raw oak grain absorbs any of the shellac's resin by way of the denatured alcohol, it leaves a fingerprint forever. Short of total cabinet disassembly and sanding maybe 10% of every surface away, those forensic pieces of Victrola DNA are there for good. I guess I am a little stumped as to why people think it so odd for wood to be merely finished with wax, because such a finish is often seen in furniture of the period, generally. It is, in the bigger picture of furniture finishes (which I am sure Eldridge Johnson's boys were plenty skilled at - at least until about 1917 or so), not at all unusual. I am well aware of the many "magical" chemical finishes like "Howard's Destroy-A-Finish" and tinted waxes mentioned by Rich that are available on the market, and it may well be the case that such an product was applied to the machine you mentioned initially, but without at least seeing pictures of the machine or preferably asking the seller some questions I couldn't be so quick to suspect it as a boogered-finish. Knowing eBay? It might be ten times worse than you think. But it may be legit. (Any luck finding that auction number?) Walt -----Original Message----- From: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of bkasindorf Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:52 PM To: Antique Phonograph List Subject: Re: [Phono-L] GOW finish Thanks, But does this mean it was previously stripped and this kind of finish added later? Did Victor ever ship a phono with this kind of finish from the factory? -Barry On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 09:22:18 -0600, "Rich" <rich-m...@octoxol.com> wrote: > Google is a wonderful invention. > > Try this, > URL: > http://www.architecturals.net/restore/home.cfm?page=productdisplay&CategoryI D=36&SubcategoryID=112&ProductID=2662&Start=1 > > Cut and paste back together as required. > > This is nothing more than colored wax... Your basic CRAPA-FINISH > > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 6:41:52 -0800, bkasindorf wrote: > > _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list Phono-L@oldcrank.org Phono-L Archive http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ Phono-L RSS Feed http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss Support Phono-L http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list Phono-L@oldcrank.org Phono-L Archive http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ Phono-L RSS Feed http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss Support Phono-L http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank _______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list Phono-L@oldcrank.org Phono-L Archive http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ Phono-L RSS Feed http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/feed/index.rss Support Phono-L http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006
