The Mellotron Group

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.
>
>
>