[y2kbruce]

You are exactly right-The scotts mostly prior to 1937 were not undercoated. That is the secret to a good chrome plating. I used to work in a factory that plated chrome cylinder rods and we used a nickel undercoating.

The late 1930's Scotts seem to be much better in their plating but I don't know if they changed their process or what. Maybe a new supplier perhaps.

[Arran]

You are exactly right-The scotts mostly prior to 1937 were not undercoated. That is the secret to a good chrome plating. I used to work in a factory that plated chrome cylinder rods and we used a nickel undercoating.

The late 1930's Scotts seem to be much better in their plating but I don't know if they changed their process or what. Maybe a new supplier perhaps.

That sounds like some sort of hard chroming process, was it a factory that manufactured or rebuilt hydraulic cylinders? There is a plater in the next city up the highway from me and they specialize in hard chroming, mostly for rebuilding hydraulic cylinders for the logging and mining industries.
In any event I don't know whether they improved after a certain date or not, one well pitted example I saw was a Scott Phantom chassis which was from 1938-39 or newer. The ones my friend had in Alberta were mostly Philharmonics, I think he may have had an All Wave 15 as well, the Phantom belonged to him. It's one thing you definately have to watch for on a Scott chassis, unless you get it really cheap it's a good idea to pay a little more and get an example with the best chrome you can.
It still blows my mind that outfits like Wells Gardner and Gillfillan (on the Western Air Patrol sets) seemed to use better chrome then Scott did even though they were sold for a fraction of the price. It really shows that slick marketing and a high price do not necessarily mean that you got an all around higher quality product.
Regards
Arran

[y2kbruce]

Thanks to reading about Ron's GREAT find, I dug out my MP VI today and its chrome is surprisingly good.
A fellow I know and trust is stopping by next week to pick it
and another MP 2 set up to take with him and hopefully get them both going again.

My VI set's serial number is H-84028,
way way different than Ron's set's serial number, AND get this it's only a 20 tube set, not the 21 in Ron's.
Mine is missing the tube directly in front left center as you look at the front of the set.

Also, I am now sure the Philco I am having cut down by Kenny is the 112X with the single speaker opening,
perfect for a 12" speaker and some chrome sitting on top the cabinet.

Here are some photos today of my MP VI. It uses a female connector on the back of the chassis to connect to the amp.
Also, note the bare wires on the right inside. Lots of them on some long runs. What's that all about ??

Thanks to Ron R's help, it looks like my MP V speaker can be made to work on the MP VI set so all will be well in the world then.

Check out all those caps in there and it seems the insides are different to some degree from Ron's set too.

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4896.jpg]

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4903.jpg]

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4905.jpg]

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4915.jpg]

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4914.jpg]

Note on the treble control, to the far left is a Beat Oscillator setting. This creates a whistle that lowers in tone
as you tune in a station. It works on BC as well as the SW bands.

Also, on the Fidelity control, you can see the adjustable IF settings of 4K, 8K, 12K and 32K width
and then there is a phono and finally a Mike setting.

The amp uses 2 6L6 output tubes but that 18" speaker can really thump it out and these could be used as an auditorium speaker setup.

[y2kbruce]

WOW-Something has been nagging at me since I saw this thread. I finally figured it out this afternoon.

Note Ron's set (1st picture below) has a total of 21 tubes, 17 on the main chassis. Also note the rows of 4 large cans on both sides of his chassis.

Per The October 1937 Radio News, he (Mr Silver) claimed this new design had the shortest and straightest design and 21 tubes was the sweet spot.

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum..._00006.jpg]

NOW-Here is my MP VI with a much different serial number than Ron's set has.
This set has only a total of 20 tubes and 16 on the main chassis (there is one hidden small metal tube in the front middle lower side)
AND look at the number of large cans on the upper (left) side:

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4906.jpg]

This appears to be a completely different layout using only 6 large cans and one less tube than are supposed to be there.
No name on the back either of the original owner. A mystery unsolved at this time.

[Ron Ramirez]

Plus, Bruce, the under-chassis layout of yours is almost completely different from mine.

My MP VI:

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum..._00001.jpg]

Compare this to the under-chassis layout of Bruce's MP VI:

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...CF4896.jpg]

Another difference I noticed: Bruce, your MP VI has a metal tag under the chassis with the serial number, while mine has a small paper tag with the serial number (H50413).

Very strange indeed.

Bruce, do you suppose that yours might be one of the last MP VI sets made before McMurdo Silver Corp. went under? That perhaps the MP VI underwent numerous changes before the end of the line?

[y2kbruce]

I have an original ad copy from Radio News showing there was supposed to be an MP VII. Perhaps this is
one of those developed as a prototype. Also, note all the red paint on the settings. Many of the tubes also have that red
swab-I figured it was just someone's notes from a restoration BUT does this one look recapped etc ?

Perhaps the red was from lab testing of the new design and proof of special test lab settings. Who really knows.

I will ask Don Hauff in Minnesota - He is considered to be the MS expert.

[Image: http://www.philcoradio.com/images/phorum...dio008.jpg]

[Ron Ramirez]

Your idea makes a lot of sense to me, Bruce. I don't know how else to explain the differences.

Regarding the red paint...could be that's all they had at the time? The trimmers in my MP VI look like they have yellow lacquer on them.

Other than the FP twist-lock electrolytic stuck in the middle of your tuner's chassis, the capacitors look original to me.

One of the things I would like to know about this is, why does your set have a metal serial number tag under the chassis while mine has a small paper tag? I'm frankly surprised the paper tag is still there. Mine has no other paperwork stuck under the chrome cover, or on the inside of the bottom chassis cover.

Please let us know what Don Hauff has to say.

[y2kbruce]

I just bought another bucket list radio this past week. It was ol' Willie who had it up and for some reason alot of his stuff sold for less than expected and he did not have snipers at the last 5 seconds. As a result I will be adding this radio after a 7 year search for a nice one. I hope it cleans up nice and has player potential. Gonna use the mojo and Howard's with a ton of elbow grease thrown in. The finish is very light on one side.

Its a 12 tube Silvertone model 1722 circa either 1933 or 1934. There seems to be at least 2 and maybe 3 versions. I know the rectifier is an 83V in one version and 5Z3 in the other. The output tubes were originally 2A3H and later went to 2A3's with the double plates. It was about $325 plus shipping but I just old this weekend my minty Scott 800B and a pretty nice recapped 14 tube Howard's 425 with a 15" Jensen speaker I was almost ready to strip out and use on a McMurdo chassis. So it was 2 radios sold and one in. The 800B was so big I was able to put 2 consoles in it's place in my bedroom and a net zero cost for the 1722..

From Willie's photos of the Silvertone 1722 with a built in digital clock

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Silvertone-1722-...true&rt=nc

[Uffda]

Great find. I didn't know they even had digital clocks in home radios that early.

[Ron Ramirez]

Congratulations, Bruce...great catch!