The Mellotron Group

http://cgi.ebay.com/CHAMBERLIN-M-1-KEYBOARD-MELLOTRON-VINTAGE-ANALOG-SYNTH-/150590670183?pt=Keyboards_MIDI&hash=item230fe74567

SHHHHHHHHHHH!
 
 
In a message dated 4/16/2011 3:11:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
charel196@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
_http://cgi.ebay.com/CHAMBERLIN-M-1-KEYBOARD-MELLOTRON-VINTAGE-ANALOG-SYNTH-
/150590670183?pt=Keyboards_MIDI&hash=item230fe74567_ 
(http://cgi.ebay.com/CHAMBERLIN-M-1-KEYBOARD-MELLOTRON-VINTAGE-ANALOG-SYNTH-/150590670183?pt=Keyboa
rds_MIDI&hash=item230fe74567)

On Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:

> "The Chamberlin is the, better and more advanced, predecessor to the Mellotron"
> 
> On what planet is it 'more advanced'?
> 
The planet Bieber.

Clearly evident in those photos. I would like to own one, though. I'm not  
likely to ever do so.
 
 
In a message dated 4/17/2011 12:23:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
barrickjohn262@gmail.com writes:

 
 
 
The shoddy case construction on the chamberlins is what always gets  me.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rick Blechta <_rick@rickblechta.com_ 
(mailto:rick@rickblechta.com) >  wrote:


 
 
 


On Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:



 
"The Chamberlin is the, better and more  advanced, predecessor to the 
Mellotron"

On what planet is it  'more advanced'?




 
 
 
 
The planet Bieber.

I wouldn't say the case's construction was itself shoddy, but the choice 
of the formica-type laminate presents a bad material differential that 
has my top slightly bowed -- and the M's usually end up with chipped 
feet and other edges that make them look crappy. Richard had told me 
that they had the case parts made by a local furniture company that made 
the components in batches (Even though mine is an M2, the lid has "M-1 
E" marked on the inside because it was the fifth in that batch). The 
main issue I could see for some is that because the chassis is mostly 
screwed-together aluminum angle and it's fastened to the bottom plywood 
deck, they can flex....but that's why you just set them on a flat 
surface to play them. Other than that they're pretty sturdy. In 
comparison to the M400 Mellotron's, I can guess that the furniture may 
not be as good.

The statement that they both "more advanced" and "predecessor" isn't 
very good history. Yes they were the predecessor - but the Mark II's are 
much better engineered than Harry's Musicmasters. But later the 
Chamberlin M's did use the better responding stereo heads - and the 
friction/tension rewind could be called more advanced by most.

But this is just the seller working his audience, isn't it?

Vance

On 4/16/2011 10:05 PM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote:
>
> Clearly evident in those photos. I would like to own one, though. I'm 
> not likely to ever do so.
> In a message dated 4/17/2011 12:23:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> barrickjohn262@gmail.com writes:
>
>     The shoddy case construction on the chamberlins is what always
>     gets me.
>
>     On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rick Blechta
>     <rick@rickblechta.com <mailto:rick@rickblechta.com>> wrote:
>
>
>         On Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:
>
>>         /"The Chamberlin is the, better and more advanced,
>>         predecessor to the Mellotron"/
>>
>>         On what planet is it 'more advanced'?
>>
>         The planet Bieber.
>
>
>

Ralph, Ralph, I'll take it!
 
 
In a message dated 4/17/2011 1:32:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
vance@juniperpacific.com writes:

 
 
 
I wouldn't say the case's construction was itself shoddy, but the choice of 
 the formica-type laminate presents a bad material differential that has my 
top  slightly bowed -- and the M's usually end up with chipped feet and 
other edges  that make them look crappy. Richard had told me that they had the 
case parts  made by a local furniture company that made the components in 
batches (Even  though mine is an M2, the lid has "M-1 E" marked on the inside 
because it was  the fifth in that batch). The main issue I could see for 
some is that because  the chassis is mostly screwed-together aluminum angle and 
it's fastened to the  bottom plywood deck, they can flex....but that's why 
you just set them on a  flat surface to play them. Other than that they're 
pretty sturdy. In  comparison to the M400 Mellotron's, I can guess that the 
furniture may not be  as good.

The statement that they both "more advanced" and "predecessor"  isn't very 
good history. Yes they were the predecessor - but the Mark II's are  much 
better engineered than Harry's Musicmasters. But later the Chamberlin M's  did 
use the better responding stereo heads - and the friction/tension rewind  
could be called more advanced by most.

But this is just the seller  working his audience, isn't it?

Vance

On 4/16/2011 10:05 PM, _lsf5275@aol.com_ (mailto:lsf5275@aol.com)  wrote:  
 
Clearly evident in those photos.  I would like to own one, though. I'm not 
likely to ever do so.
 
 
In a message dated 4/17/2011  12:23:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_barrickjohn262@gmail.com_ (mailto:barrickjohn262@gmail.com)   writes:

 
The  shoddy case construction on the chamberlins is what always gets  me.

On  Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rick Blechta <_rick@rickblechta.com_ 
(mailto:rick@rickblechta.com) > wrote:

 
 
 
 


On  Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:


 
 
"The Chamberlin is the, better and more  advanced, predecessor to the 
Mellotron"

On what planet is  it 'more  advanced'?




 
 
 
 
The planet  Bieber.

A Chamberlin !
 
I'd like to take one too!
 
   -Bruce D.


--- On Sat, 4/16/11, lsf5275@aol.com <lsf5275@aol.com> wrote:

From: lsf5275@aol.com <lsf5275@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Chamberlin M 1 on Ebay
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2011, 11:51 PM


  




Ralph, Ralph, I'll take it!
 

In a message dated 4/17/2011 1:32:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vance@juniperpacific.com writes:
  

I wouldn't say the case's construction was itself shoddy, but the choice of the formica-type laminate presents a bad material differential that has my top slightly bowed -- and the M's usually end up with chipped feet and other edges that make them look crappy. Richard had told me that they had the case parts made by a local furniture company that made the components in batches (Even though mine is an M2, the lid has "M-1 E" marked on the inside because it was the fifth in that batch). The main issue I could see for some is that because the chassis is mostly screwed-together aluminum angle and it's fastened to the bottom plywood deck, they can flex....but that's why you just set them on a flat surface to play them. Other than that they're pretty sturdy. In comparison to the M400 Mellotron's, I can guess that the furniture may not be as good.

The statement that they both "more advanced" and "predecessor" isn't very good history. Yes they were the predecessor - but the Mark II's are much better engineered than Harry's Musicmasters. But later the Chamberlin M's did use the better responding stereo heads - and the friction/tension rewind could be called more advanced by most.

But this is just the seller working his audience, isn't it?

Vance

On 4/16/2011 10:05 PM, lsf5275@aol.com wrote: 
  


Clearly evident in those photos. I would like to own one, though. I'm not likely to ever do so.
 

In a message dated 4/17/2011 12:23:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barrickjohn262@gmail.com writes:
  

The shoddy case construction on the chamberlins is what always gets me.


On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Rick Blechta <rick@rickblechta.com> wrote:


  






On Apr 16, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Mike Dickson wrote:


  

"The Chamberlin is the, better and more advanced, predecessor to the Mellotron"

On what planet is it 'more advanced'?




The planet Bieber.