Hi Steve, The VV 2-65 is by no means rare or even scarce. The one shown in the link appears to have all of its accessories and the condition is (based on my acquisitions) better than average (maybe 7 out of 10 where most probably come in at 6 out of 10 or worse). I do not know of a source of manufacturing counts for the RCA-Victor Orthophonic portables but compared to the VV 2-55 I see about 6 or 7 times more 2-55s than 2-60/65. Maybe Bob Baumbach or Paul Edie has more data - I have not checked with them. I get a total of about 30 or so Orthophonic portables per year through my shop, so I don't know how well my estimates equate with actual production levels and I suspect that because the 2-65s were made of wood that many would have been trashed long ago compared to the explosion and bullet proof armored case of the 2-55. In my hands-on experience, the VV 2-55, because it is a solid metal case, tends to hold up much better than any of the wooden and fiberboard concoctions used in the later RCA-Victor machines (or the earlier machines like the VV-35, 1-X, etc. for that matter). The bonded leather cloth is problematic on all of them. The 2-65 motor boards are the equivalent of a Masonite like product (which I call really strong cardboard) and it is somewhat flimsy. I often put a 2-55 alongside of the 2-65 for comparison sake and the 2-55 is always the winner. Simple physics dictates that it has to be so. The 2-65 isn't a slacker really, but the 2-55 just has a bit more integrity, mass, and horn length (perhaps shape as well). I must say that the motors and hardware of the latest 2-65s and the 2-60/65s are usually quite reliable and easily comparable in quality. Many later Orthophonic reproducers, especially those that bear the RCA-Victor name have had the spider removed or have no spider at all as you mention. The needle arm is still soldered to mounting point, but obviously not on a spider. Are yours RCA-Victor branded parts? Another curious characteristic to look for in the later RCA-Victor Orthophonic reproducers is the presence of a diaphragm that resembles that of the HMV 5A. This is the type that looks almost identical to the Victor Orthophonic but it has 6 small equally spaced indentations impressed in one of the ridges (valley as viewed from the front). I have pictures and other technical writing that I will email to you privately if you want it. They are standard issue for the HMV 5A (the HMV 5B is a different story and a step backward IMHO). I have seen the HMV 5A style diaphragm used in late RCA-Victor Orthophonic 5A reproducers with and without a spider. I've never really contemplated what might be a good engineering reason for the variations although the performance of them all, except the HMV 5B, is quite similar. I do not necessarily agree with those that hold to the thought that RCA-Victor was just using up whatever was lying around. Those diaphragms that have NO spider at all (i.e. no left over "toes") may indeed at least look like a cost cutting measure somehow, but those diaphragms that still have the "toes" tend to make me think something more technical is in view. The reason I say that is because clipping the spider free of its "toes" shows: (1) that the diaphragms were obviously already fitted with spiders and ready to be used in the way we most often see, (2) labor was required to remove them and, (3) even more labor was required to install an alternate mounting point for the needle arm solder connection, and these things would seem to suggest [to me] something of a technical reason; else, why bother with all the labor? I'd love to hear what others know on the subject because most of my writing here is based on pure observation during restorations. The pot metal formula used for the Victor and RCA-Victor Orthophonic No.5A (i.e. portable style) is indeed a much more stable alloy. In fact, I have only seen one 5A with pot metal problems. Although I do not have the capability to analyze the composition of the various pot metal alloys, I tend to think that the percentage of zinc that was used in the early alloys was too high (probably because the zinc was the cheapest metal in the alloy?). If anyone else has specific knowledge of metallurgy and any test data that shows the percentages of metals used in the different alloys I would love to see it. Walt -----Original Message----- From: phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org [mailto:phono-l-bounces at oldcrank.org] On Behalf Of Steven Medved Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 5:49 PM To: Phono-l Subject: [Phono-L] 1930 suitcase RCA Victor http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=230208956264 http://tinyurl.com/2qdm8m How rare are these and is it a VV2-65? Steve_______________________________________________ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29 AM