Welcome Guest! Be sure you know and follow the Phorum Rules before posting. Thank you and Enjoy! (January 12) x

Thread Closed
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Deforest Crosley
#1

I bought this 1939-40 radio from the son of the original owner.. I recapped it and did some work on the cabinet and now it plays and looks good. It is a model14-106..Rogers had names for their radios and this one is called RITZ..[attachment=2882][attachment=2882][attachment=2881][attachment=2881]


Attached Files Image(s)
                   
#2

Handsome set.
#3

I like the looks of it.
#4

I can see why they called it The Ritz... very classy looking set! Nice.

The artist formerly known as Puhpow! 8)
#5

Very nice console radio. I like the looks of it, the curved radio dial is like my RCA 816k console. Good luck and enjoy the radio!
#6

What a nice looking console. I also like the tuning eye tubes prominence above the dial scale.
#7

The chassis is very similar to my 1938-39 Deforest Crosley Brahms, the knobs were coated with a dark brown tinted lacquer originally, undercoated with silver paint. In 1940 or so they dropped the "Crosley" portion of Deforest Crosley, probably because Mohawk radio acquired the rights to use that name in Canada, perhaps after Ted Rogers senior died and the company was sold to Small Electric Motors Ltd.
This Deforest is rather strange, it looks like a 1938-39 Canadian Majestic model. I did find an add for it on the radiomuuseeum site, all of the other Deforest models have a flat, rectangular slide rule dial, and the example they show of a "Ritz" has a pushbutton bank of ten above the dial indicating it was motor tuned.

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/deforest_ri...d1092.html

The 1938-39 Majestic models looked almost identical, here is a very similar set that again does not have the motor tuning:

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/rogerstube_...m1091.html

In the 1938-39 model year they often had two two models sharing the same chassis with the same circuits, the more expensive set would have the motorized tuning, the cheaper set would not. The 8105 had no pushbuttons, the 8106 did have pushbuttons, one used the 8M1091 chassis, the other used the 8M1092 chassis with the motor tuning but everything else is the same. Here is a Deforest Crosley Liszt, it has a 8D991 chassis, no pushbuttons:

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/deforest_liszt.html

Here is the set I have, a Deforest Crosley Brahms, it uses an 8D992 chassis, same chassis but with motor tuning, the Liszt is was $10 cheaper:

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/deforest_br...992_2.html

When you get right into the technical aspects it's amazing how much of the design was based on marketing rather then meaningful engineering in some sets, the main difference between the 8D(M,R)1091/1092 and the 8D(M,R)991/992 was the addition of a type 84M tube, basically a spray shielded 6H6G, and the substitution of a 6J5M for a 6R7M, the circuitry connected to the two separate tubes is exactly the same.
My guess is that Rogers was trying to use up left over 1938-39 Majestic chassis for the 1939-40 model year, either that of they couldn't be bothered with the cost of retooling and engineering for a new top end model and just facelifted a 1938-39 Majestic instead.
Regards
Arran
#8

Arran, Thanks for all the information. about my radio.
As you said the knobs had a dark lacquer with silver undercoated. I tried to reproduce that effect with no luck. By looking at mine I can see where they would have put the push buttons because that piece of wood could have been removed. I did not realize there were so many models that were the same. Now it seems that my radio is worth a little more than I paid for it $125.00.
thanks again Dan
#9

Stain doesn't work on those knobs, since they are made out of a blond grainless hardwood like maple, you would have to use a shading lacquer like Mohawk. As for financial value it's kind of subjective, since they are Canadian made sets they are generally overlooked even in Canada, but they are very interesting.
Regards
Arran




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
[-]
Recent Posts
Atwater-Kent 84, restoration.
Nice radio, Mike! Here's hoping it was well rebuilt. Take care and BE HEALTHY! GaryGarySP — 12:12 AM
Atwater-Kent 84, restoration.
Rich yes, this is the way I got it. I have just put it on the table and took it apart. I suspect it even might work,...morzh — 11:31 PM
Atwater-Kent 84, restoration.
Hello mike, What nice looking radio I have one AK in my collection it's a console I have not started restoring it yet ....radiorich — 11:21 PM
91H Code 126 Restore
Just to make it more confusing here is another model 91 schematic that doesn't show parts with dotted lines in that spot...Arran — 10:37 PM
Atwater-Kent 84, restoration.
The wires were desoldered from the can, and the capacitors checked. All checked at 0.102 uF, which is correct. So the c...morzh — 09:41 PM
An attempt to remove the Field Coil from a G speaker
Arran Yours probably then the H speaker, same as mine.morzh — 08:39 PM
An attempt to remove the Field Coil from a G speaker
Mike; I would like to have a look at the speaker in my model 96, but the set is packed into a corner in the basement. ...Arran — 08:04 PM
91H Code 126 Restore
Thanks Arran, I'm convinced the power cord is good but have a nice repro plug for it. Would it be prudent to add a fus...RealRider — 07:28 PM
91H Code 126 Restore
As I was studying this schematic I was wondering what does this dotted line means?  I haven't traced it out yet. An o...RealRider — 07:22 PM
91H Code 126 Restore
When it comes to the cloth covered power cords, if they are not frayed, and are flexible, and if I can bend one without ...Arran — 06:21 PM

[-]
Who's Online
There are currently 2696 online users. [Complete List]
» 1 Member(s) | 2695 Guest(s)
Avatar

>