Hi Geneml
Zamac is the name of the zinc alloy the non-magnetic platter (referred to as the "flywheel" by some authorities) is made of. Inca was the Swiss foundry that made these platters.
I'm actually planning on acquiring one of Schopper's non-magnetic iron platters in the future, but at the moment I am on the cusp of ordering a Schick arm to go on the slate plinth I will eventually have for this table.
I'm assuming you have gone through the usual routine of rebuilding the motor - if not the results are well worth the effort.
Out of curiosity whose motor mounting bushings are you using?
Mine runs reasonably quietly now, but it took a long time to get it that way. The final step was surprisingly a rather vigorous polishing of the belt running surfaces of the intermediate pulley. This made about as much difference as anything I tried. Plus talcing the belt. When new this belt was terribly noisy, but with use has stretched rather significantly and now runs almost as quiet as the original belt which I retain as a reference - surprisingly it was in very good shape. Belt tension and elasticity seem to be critical parameters in getting drive train noise down to reasonable levels.
Even the new belt seems to leave some residue on the pulleys which surprised me since it is only a few months old. I'm wondering about its longevity and do have spares.
You've mentioned the sintered bronze bushing(s) in the intermediate pulley set up so I am assuming that you have the later set up with the bushings in the chassis. Given the increased surface area compared to the original setup with the bushing in the pulley these bushings should last a long time - that's a good thing because like you I have found no source for these. I assume Octave Audio and Schopper probably can replace these during a rebuild if it proves critically necessary. IIRC the intermediate pulley runs at 700rpm so given the relatively low speed and their size the bearings should last much longer than the motor bearings..
The drive train certainly isn't silent, but at least I can no longer hear it from more than a foot away. Drove me nuts for a while. Comments in reviews written more than 40yrs ago confirm this was an issue when these were new. Strangely very early MKI do seem very slightly quieter. (I've worked on two)
Zamac is the name of the zinc alloy the non-magnetic platter (referred to as the "flywheel" by some authorities) is made of. Inca was the Swiss foundry that made these platters.
I'm actually planning on acquiring one of Schopper's non-magnetic iron platters in the future, but at the moment I am on the cusp of ordering a Schick arm to go on the slate plinth I will eventually have for this table.
I'm assuming you have gone through the usual routine of rebuilding the motor - if not the results are well worth the effort.
Out of curiosity whose motor mounting bushings are you using?
Mine runs reasonably quietly now, but it took a long time to get it that way. The final step was surprisingly a rather vigorous polishing of the belt running surfaces of the intermediate pulley. This made about as much difference as anything I tried. Plus talcing the belt. When new this belt was terribly noisy, but with use has stretched rather significantly and now runs almost as quiet as the original belt which I retain as a reference - surprisingly it was in very good shape. Belt tension and elasticity seem to be critical parameters in getting drive train noise down to reasonable levels.
Even the new belt seems to leave some residue on the pulleys which surprised me since it is only a few months old. I'm wondering about its longevity and do have spares.
You've mentioned the sintered bronze bushing(s) in the intermediate pulley set up so I am assuming that you have the later set up with the bushings in the chassis. Given the increased surface area compared to the original setup with the bushing in the pulley these bushings should last a long time - that's a good thing because like you I have found no source for these. I assume Octave Audio and Schopper probably can replace these during a rebuild if it proves critically necessary. IIRC the intermediate pulley runs at 700rpm so given the relatively low speed and their size the bearings should last much longer than the motor bearings..
The drive train certainly isn't silent, but at least I can no longer hear it from more than a foot away. Drove me nuts for a while. Comments in reviews written more than 40yrs ago confirm this was an issue when these were new. Strangely very early MKI do seem very slightly quieter. (I've worked on two)
Hi Kevinkr,
Thanks for the correction of the name of the alloy platter.
I completely rebuilt the motor, including drilling out the rivets. However, I didn't replace the original bearings or the felts because I deemed both to be in good shape. BTW, the bearings were not plated on this motor, like some people have reported on theirs. The only problem I have with the motor now is it's vibration. Contrary to what some have reported, at least this rotor is not dynamically balanced. I would like to rebuild mine again, and have this done. However, I haven't yet done the research to find somewhere that could do this at a reasonable price.
When I first installed the new belt, I was extremely disappointed with the results. The noise was worse than with the original. (and so was the flutter.) I replaced the original because it was cracking, and I thought at the time was too loose. (I have since re-thought that position.) I thought at first I had an intermediate bearing problem, (that is why I looked for a replacement) with all of the noise, but after the belt stretched, I cleaned the rubber off of both pully's, and talced the belt for the second time, the drivetrain became so quiet that It is very difficult to hear any noise, and the flutter is now gone. From what I have read on the Schopper site, they will replace the sintered intermediate bearing if it is worn, but will not sell them to the public. As far as I know, they are the only source of this bearing. I suspect that they do not allow the bearing to be sold to the public because of the difficulty of replacing it.
On a side note, I am on a list devoted to the classic Hammond organ, mostly to the iconic B3 and it's derivatives. They maintain an "Age List", which is figured by serial number. As far as I know, there is no such list for the TD 124, perhaps we can start one. Mine has a serial number of 49002. I got my TD124 from the son of the owner, (deceased) and the owner had installed a SME 3012 series II. This might help to narrow the age down.
Thanks for the correction of the name of the alloy platter.
I completely rebuilt the motor, including drilling out the rivets. However, I didn't replace the original bearings or the felts because I deemed both to be in good shape. BTW, the bearings were not plated on this motor, like some people have reported on theirs. The only problem I have with the motor now is it's vibration. Contrary to what some have reported, at least this rotor is not dynamically balanced. I would like to rebuild mine again, and have this done. However, I haven't yet done the research to find somewhere that could do this at a reasonable price.
When I first installed the new belt, I was extremely disappointed with the results. The noise was worse than with the original. (and so was the flutter.) I replaced the original because it was cracking, and I thought at the time was too loose. (I have since re-thought that position.) I thought at first I had an intermediate bearing problem, (that is why I looked for a replacement) with all of the noise, but after the belt stretched, I cleaned the rubber off of both pully's, and talced the belt for the second time, the drivetrain became so quiet that It is very difficult to hear any noise, and the flutter is now gone. From what I have read on the Schopper site, they will replace the sintered intermediate bearing if it is worn, but will not sell them to the public. As far as I know, they are the only source of this bearing. I suspect that they do not allow the bearing to be sold to the public because of the difficulty of replacing it.
On a side note, I am on a list devoted to the classic Hammond organ, mostly to the iconic B3 and it's derivatives. They maintain an "Age List", which is figured by serial number. As far as I know, there is no such list for the TD 124, perhaps we can start one. Mine has a serial number of 49002. I got my TD124 from the son of the owner, (deceased) and the owner had installed a SME 3012 series II. This might help to narrow the age down.
Hi Geneml,
I replaced the bearings and felts in my motor, and highly recommend motor bearings from Steve (User 510) at "The Analog Depot" - unfortunately I used someone else's and am only now really becoming confident that they are ok. Steve's bearings are very precisely made and motors I've rebuilt with these run extremely smoothly compared to the few I've seen with the originals which generally are quite worn.
The rotors in these motors are dynamically balanced and without the belt installed should exhibit little noise or vibration. Once the motor is delivering power to a load the vibration does increase significantly - a lot of this does appear to be belt stiction, but the motor being only 4 poles and an induction motor at that does cog to some degree, and no amount of rotor balancing is going to totally fix the vibration issues. For reasons as yet unclear to me some motors appear on casual observation to be better in this regard than others. (Could be rotor balance?) Note that there were significant running changes in the motor design. Early motors do not have the lubrication hole for servicing the lower bearing, and there are at least 3 variations of motor coils known to exist.
Your experience with regard to noise sounds incredibly familiar..
Mine probably isn't as quiet as yours, but the table overall is very quiet.
I have about 1kg of added mass from the Bren1 record weight and the Merrill-Scillia mat, bring the total into the range of the cast iron platter. (around 4.5kg) The problem with the zamac platter is that it rings rather badly and is also excited by the idler wheel. The cast iron platter is much denser and less readily excited by the idler. It seems much quieter to me. Unfortunately I am stuck with the Zamac platter for the time being. Might spring for an eBay platter, but will probably save pennies for the Schopper.
I worked on units with serial numbers 9xxx, and 12xxx, (1959) and own a MKI parts unit in the 45xxx range, mine is very late at 868xx. Early units have idlers with date of assembly stamped on the lower metal insert, later units don't. The idler from 45xxx is doing duty on my MKII because it runs truer and more quietly than the later idler. Mine dates from sometime in 1967 - purchased from the original owner. The highest I have seen anywhere was in the low 90s. I believe a total of about 95K were made. (Corroborated by numbers in "Swiss Precision") A lot of them fortunately still exist..
I replaced the bearings and felts in my motor, and highly recommend motor bearings from Steve (User 510) at "The Analog Depot" - unfortunately I used someone else's and am only now really becoming confident that they are ok. Steve's bearings are very precisely made and motors I've rebuilt with these run extremely smoothly compared to the few I've seen with the originals which generally are quite worn.
The rotors in these motors are dynamically balanced and without the belt installed should exhibit little noise or vibration. Once the motor is delivering power to a load the vibration does increase significantly - a lot of this does appear to be belt stiction, but the motor being only 4 poles and an induction motor at that does cog to some degree, and no amount of rotor balancing is going to totally fix the vibration issues. For reasons as yet unclear to me some motors appear on casual observation to be better in this regard than others. (Could be rotor balance?) Note that there were significant running changes in the motor design. Early motors do not have the lubrication hole for servicing the lower bearing, and there are at least 3 variations of motor coils known to exist.
Your experience with regard to noise sounds incredibly familiar..
Mine probably isn't as quiet as yours, but the table overall is very quiet. I have about 1kg of added mass from the Bren1 record weight and the Merrill-Scillia mat, bring the total into the range of the cast iron platter. (around 4.5kg) The problem with the zamac platter is that it rings rather badly and is also excited by the idler wheel. The cast iron platter is much denser and less readily excited by the idler. It seems much quieter to me. Unfortunately I am stuck with the Zamac platter for the time being. Might spring for an eBay platter, but will probably save pennies for the Schopper.
I worked on units with serial numbers 9xxx, and 12xxx, (1959) and own a MKI parts unit in the 45xxx range, mine is very late at 868xx. Early units have idlers with date of assembly stamped on the lower metal insert, later units don't. The idler from 45xxx is doing duty on my MKII because it runs truer and more quietly than the later idler. Mine dates from sometime in 1967 - purchased from the original owner. The highest I have seen anywhere was in the low 90s. I believe a total of about 95K were made. (Corroborated by numbers in "Swiss Precision") A lot of them fortunately still exist..
Last edited:
One thing I meant to ask is whether or not you've replaced the original motor mounts with new ones. The MKII motor mount upgrade kits for MKIs from either Schopper or sq38s on eBay should really help reduce vibration from the motor coupling into the chassis. This is the one area on a MKII besides the bronze bushed main bearing that I have identified as a real improvement over the MKI.
Even just a replacement set of motor mounting bushings from either of the above should be a significant improvement over the originals. (Which usually appear to be just fine IMHO, but actually don't work that well.)
I'm actually using geltec bushings for the moment on mine and they seem to work quite well, but are a bit far in conception from the original parts. They are a bit controversial, and were I to purchase motor bushings again I would go for the ones from Schopper instead. The geltecs do however seem to be very effective in isolating motor vibration from the chassis, so until I have demonstrable problems with them I will keep on using them.
Even just a replacement set of motor mounting bushings from either of the above should be a significant improvement over the originals. (Which usually appear to be just fine IMHO, but actually don't work that well.)
I'm actually using geltec bushings for the moment on mine and they seem to work quite well, but are a bit far in conception from the original parts. They are a bit controversial, and were I to purchase motor bushings again I would go for the ones from Schopper instead. The geltecs do however seem to be very effective in isolating motor vibration from the chassis, so until I have demonstrable problems with them I will keep on using them.
Last edited:
Hi Kevinkr,
I do intend to replace the original "Gummimuffins" with new ones sometime soon, even if the originals seem to be pliant and work fine, (as far as I can tell.)
The motor mount upgrade kit is also a future plan, there is the Schopper kit, and there is a guy that lives close to me, in Huntington Beach, California, that makes many parts for the TD 124, that advertises on Ebay. His Ebay name is "SQ38S", and I have seen him advertising parts made for the TD 124 and the Garrard 301. Another TD 124 (and 301) parts merchant commonly found advertising on Ebay is JEC965 from Toyersford, PA. After re-reading your post, I see we are both talking about the same guy.
Please understand I am NOT affliated with, and have had no experience with either. I am therefore, not able to tell you any good or bad experiences about their products and services. Just a disclaimer.
BTW, "SQ38" now sells a stainless steel replacement inner "flywheel" similar to the Schopper product. As for performance differences between Stainless vs non-magnetic iron, I have no idea. I guess however, the SS one is cheaper. I wonder, however, if it might ring like the Zamac platter?
I also have one comment about the MK II suspension, which might also apply to the aftermarket MK II kits for the MK I.
The MK I motor mount has a relatively short distance between the studs and the motor mount bushings, while the MK II kit lengthens that to make it possible to add an additional bushing per stud, to allow more vibration suppression. The question I have is movement, or more properly alignment. I would think that with the added flexibility of the extra bushing, there is a possibility that the motor pully, even with the heavy motor on the end, could be out of alignment with the belt/intermediate pully. I suspect that if this is found, you could shim one or more of the three studs to compensate.
BTW, I suspect that anything made by Schopper is probably the best, but also the most expensive. I have, on occasion traded emails with Stefano Pasini, Main-English He also mentioned the high Schopper prices. If you have not checked out his site, your missing a good read. However, don't expect anything truly technical.
I do intend to replace the original "Gummimuffins" with new ones sometime soon, even if the originals seem to be pliant and work fine, (as far as I can tell.)
The motor mount upgrade kit is also a future plan, there is the Schopper kit, and there is a guy that lives close to me, in Huntington Beach, California, that makes many parts for the TD 124, that advertises on Ebay. His Ebay name is "SQ38S", and I have seen him advertising parts made for the TD 124 and the Garrard 301. Another TD 124 (and 301) parts merchant commonly found advertising on Ebay is JEC965 from Toyersford, PA. After re-reading your post, I see we are both talking about the same guy.
Please understand I am NOT affliated with, and have had no experience with either. I am therefore, not able to tell you any good or bad experiences about their products and services. Just a disclaimer.
BTW, "SQ38" now sells a stainless steel replacement inner "flywheel" similar to the Schopper product. As for performance differences between Stainless vs non-magnetic iron, I have no idea. I guess however, the SS one is cheaper. I wonder, however, if it might ring like the Zamac platter?
I also have one comment about the MK II suspension, which might also apply to the aftermarket MK II kits for the MK I.
The MK I motor mount has a relatively short distance between the studs and the motor mount bushings, while the MK II kit lengthens that to make it possible to add an additional bushing per stud, to allow more vibration suppression. The question I have is movement, or more properly alignment. I would think that with the added flexibility of the extra bushing, there is a possibility that the motor pully, even with the heavy motor on the end, could be out of alignment with the belt/intermediate pully. I suspect that if this is found, you could shim one or more of the three studs to compensate.
BTW, I suspect that anything made by Schopper is probably the best, but also the most expensive. I have, on occasion traded emails with Stefano Pasini, Main-English He also mentioned the high Schopper prices. If you have not checked out his site, your missing a good read. However, don't expect anything truly technical.
Well familiar with the Pasini site, wish it was a bit more technical.
So far no problem with mis-alignment with the double bushing set up and that is with the geltec bushings. A very new belt might be a different matter however. I believe that there would be no issue with the Schopper bushings even on a MKII.
I have tried installing the geltecs with both bushings above the chassis and also with it below. No significant difference in noise performance that I can discern. I currently run my bushings all on the top side, however I think in the event of a really tight belt it might be better to place one above and one below.
Some people apparently do shim with the geltec bushings on the MKI in particular.
I would replace the original motor mounting bushings when you can, everyone I have talked to who did this after using the table noted a big improvement. I did it prior to listening to mine so can't confirm it, but believe it to be true hence the replacement bushings during the rebuild.
So far no problem with mis-alignment with the double bushing set up and that is with the geltec bushings. A very new belt might be a different matter however. I believe that there would be no issue with the Schopper bushings even on a MKII.
I have tried installing the geltecs with both bushings above the chassis and also with it below. No significant difference in noise performance that I can discern. I currently run my bushings all on the top side, however I think in the event of a really tight belt it might be better to place one above and one below.
Some people apparently do shim with the geltec bushings on the MKI in particular.
I would replace the original motor mounting bushings when you can, everyone I have talked to who did this after using the table noted a big improvement. I did it prior to listening to mine so can't confirm it, but believe it to be true hence the replacement bushings during the rebuild.
TD 124 Madness? LOL
To Kevin and anyone and everyone that has contributed to this thread,
Wow! I just read *most* of this thread from the beginning, (I admit, I had merely skimmed it before.) I am still attempting to digest it.
I have learned more here, in a shorter amount of time, than the whole rest of the time I have owned my late MKI (got in 2006)
Thank you all!
Question for you Kevin, or whomever else wants to answer it....
Do I have the later intermediate pully? (used mostly on the MKII)
My intermediate wheel, from what I have read, is one of the later ones, which I think makes sense, given that my serial number is 49002. My intermediate pully has a shaft running from the bottom of the pully, terminating at a small thrust plate, adjustable at the bottom with a screw and locknut. The shaft at the top of the pully looks like a ball bearing, which at first confused me. BTW, mine leaked oil at the bottom adjustable screw until I installed a paper ring gasket, and now it is oil-tight.
Anyhow, just want to say I appreciate a bunch of people, especially Kevin, who has led the charge), who are as dedicated to getting as much performance from this fanscinating machine as myself!
PS: I think it would be FANTASTIC if this whole thread, beginning to now, be made available in one PDF, DOC, what have you. I could, of course, cut and paste the whole thing, but that would be difficult. Help?
To Kevin and anyone and everyone that has contributed to this thread,
Wow! I just read *most* of this thread from the beginning, (I admit, I had merely skimmed it before.) I am still attempting to digest it.
I have learned more here, in a shorter amount of time, than the whole rest of the time I have owned my late MKI (got in 2006)
Thank you all!
Question for you Kevin, or whomever else wants to answer it....
Do I have the later intermediate pully? (used mostly on the MKII)
My intermediate wheel, from what I have read, is one of the later ones, which I think makes sense, given that my serial number is 49002. My intermediate pully has a shaft running from the bottom of the pully, terminating at a small thrust plate, adjustable at the bottom with a screw and locknut. The shaft at the top of the pully looks like a ball bearing, which at first confused me. BTW, mine leaked oil at the bottom adjustable screw until I installed a paper ring gasket, and now it is oil-tight.
Anyhow, just want to say I appreciate a bunch of people, especially Kevin, who has led the charge), who are as dedicated to getting as much performance from this fanscinating machine as myself!
PS: I think it would be FANTASTIC if this whole thread, beginning to now, be made available in one PDF, DOC, what have you. I could, of course, cut and paste the whole thing, but that would be difficult. Help?
Hi Geneml,
Yes you have the later intermediate pulley. I'm not sure of the exact point where they made the change over, but all units with serial numbers in the 4xxxx range that I have seen have it. I have some vague recollection that there may have been an intermediate variation on the chassis mounting with the original intermediate pulley assembly. The interesting thing about the original pulley is that the bearing was integral with it and all of that bronze did seem to damp it slightly more than the later version.
And of course there were minor changes in the intermediate pulley finish, thickness and other things, but I've only got two - one from a 45xxx MKI and one from my 86xxx MKII. They differ slightly in finish and the skirt thickness.
The paper gasket idea IMHO is a great one, and I think the right thing to do. I have been thinking of doing the same thing, but have not yet got around to it.
Edit December 2012: I have a parts unit with a serial number of 266xx which has the later idler pulley, earliest unit I have yet seen with this pulley..
I've seen maybe 5 spindles so far and your's would be the first I've heard of needing a rechrome.. I guess your table has seen a lot of use which means it was much loved in a previous life..
I guess you would have to provide very specific instructions, and make sure that they understand exactly what needs chrome and what doesn't.
Kevin, thanks for replying. maybe it's a MK 1 thing, my other bearing and shaft that came with the iron flywheel is worn also. Wanna trade?
Me like shiny things..
Seriously as I think about it I recall the spindles I looked at on the two MKI I have worked on were not nearly as shiny as the one on my MKII. Mine is a very low hours unit though.. I don't have the spindle and bearing from the MKI I own - missing when I acquired it - along with a lot of other parts.
Gentlemen. To the best of my knowledge, the platter bearing shaft is not chrome plated. There may be significant quantities of chrome in its steel alloy. Enough to qualify the alloy as belonging to a stainless steel family, but it is not chrome plated. Quite sure.
Before assuming that you have a worn platter bearing shaft, I would measure its diameter up down and around with a micrometer. Look for variations in size in areas of wear as opposed to the same size all over, like a new bearing shaft would have. Sometimes the wear patterns seen on these look far worse then they really are.
-Steve
Hi Steve,
Geneml was talking about the top portion of the spindle (7mm) where the 45 rpm adapter and the record sit. I had assumed that mine might be polished stainless, but I have no idea, it does look like chrome on casual inspection. I have seen a couple of MKI that looked a little more worn, but not nearly as bad as Geneml describes as being the case with his - I had the impression at the time that the 7mm portion above the flange was plated. (I will be working on both of these tables again in the near future and will be observant.)
Could it just be corrosion? I'm looking at a picture in "Swiss Precision" of the top of a spindle and it looks like it has some speckles of rust on it.
Geneml was talking about the top portion of the spindle (7mm) where the 45 rpm adapter and the record sit. I had assumed that mine might be polished stainless, but I have no idea, it does look like chrome on casual inspection. I have seen a couple of MKI that looked a little more worn, but not nearly as bad as Geneml describes as being the case with his - I had the impression at the time that the 7mm portion above the flange was plated. (I will be working on both of these tables again in the near future and will be observant.)
Could it just be corrosion? I'm looking at a picture in "Swiss Precision" of the top of a spindle and it looks like it has some speckles of rust on it.
Last edited:
One way to tell if a part has been chrome plated is to look for 'chrome run-out' where the plating stops. This is the case only when a portion of the part has been plated and leaving the remainder un-plated.
Anyway, chrome run-out will look kind of like pavement on shoulder of a road where it segues into gravel. A bit unsightly with random blobs, all very small, of course. Usually, there will be a drawing tolerance indicating to the chrome shop where they can plate, where they cant, and that area where run-out is allowed to occur.
So, look for chrome run-out. I haven't seen any.
-Steve
Anyway, chrome run-out will look kind of like pavement on shoulder of a road where it segues into gravel. A bit unsightly with random blobs, all very small, of course. Usually, there will be a drawing tolerance indicating to the chrome shop where they can plate, where they cant, and that area where run-out is allowed to occur.
So, look for chrome run-out. I haven't seen any.
-Steve
This is useful information, I haven't seen any evidence on mine either. Mine looks very good. I will look at the other two when I have the opportunity.
Geneml - Perhaps a good polish is all that is needed?
Kevin, Steve,
"One way to tell if a part has been chrome plated is to look for 'chrome run-out' where the plating stops. This is the case only when a portion of the part has been plated and leaving the remainder un-plated."
"Gentlemen. To the best of my knowledge, the platter bearing shaft is not chrome plated. There may be significant quantities of chrome in its steel alloy. Enough to qualify the alloy as belonging to a stainless steel family, but it is not chrome plated. Quite sure."
"Before assuming that you have a worn platter bearing shaft, I would measure its diameter up down and around with a micrometer. Look for variations in size in areas of wear as opposed to the same size all over, like a new bearing shaft would have. Sometimes the wear patterns seen on these look far worse then they really are."
Steve, Kevin, thanks for the replies.
I have just inspected both of my upper spindles, and yes, they both have "chrome runout", and yes, they both have varying amounts of chrome worn through, (although one is much worse than the other) mostly at the top, where the (can't remember the proper name) "lath mark" which the operator used to center the spindle as it was being turned. I estimate the land where the "chrome runout" is approx 2 mm on my spare spindle. Apllogies I am not being more specific, my micrometer battery is dead. (just love modern equipment.)
Steve, the area's where the chrome is missing is rusted. No, not the large flakes or bumpy-kind, but the kind where the chrome is missing, and the steel underneath is best described as "polished rusty brown", obviously from the records sliding on and off.
I will be checking with a chrome plater sometime, after I get my mic working, I don't want to make the chrome too thick, and have a problem getting my records on.
Ok, here is another problem I have noticed that will have you two checking your 124's.
The other day, I decided to give my 124 a coat of wax. I removed the sub and main platters, and then decided to remove the clutch assembly to get underneath it. After waxing the unit, I took a close look at the clutch, and inspected the three lands where the clutch pushes the sub-platter up. I then realized that the factory used a thick grey tape (similar to duct tape) to cover that area, and mine had severe wear on two of the three. After thinking of what I should do, I realized that I had some thick aluminum tape at hand. I replaced all three worn pieces of tape. I am monitoring all three to see how they wear, but so far, so good. I would like to use the original, but I suspect that this will be difficult to source.
"One way to tell if a part has been chrome plated is to look for 'chrome run-out' where the plating stops. This is the case only when a portion of the part has been plated and leaving the remainder un-plated."
"Gentlemen. To the best of my knowledge, the platter bearing shaft is not chrome plated. There may be significant quantities of chrome in its steel alloy. Enough to qualify the alloy as belonging to a stainless steel family, but it is not chrome plated. Quite sure."
"Before assuming that you have a worn platter bearing shaft, I would measure its diameter up down and around with a micrometer. Look for variations in size in areas of wear as opposed to the same size all over, like a new bearing shaft would have. Sometimes the wear patterns seen on these look far worse then they really are."
Steve, Kevin, thanks for the replies.
I have just inspected both of my upper spindles, and yes, they both have "chrome runout", and yes, they both have varying amounts of chrome worn through, (although one is much worse than the other) mostly at the top, where the (can't remember the proper name) "lath mark" which the operator used to center the spindle as it was being turned. I estimate the land where the "chrome runout" is approx 2 mm on my spare spindle. Apllogies I am not being more specific, my micrometer battery is dead. (just love modern equipment.)
Steve, the area's where the chrome is missing is rusted. No, not the large flakes or bumpy-kind, but the kind where the chrome is missing, and the steel underneath is best described as "polished rusty brown", obviously from the records sliding on and off.
I will be checking with a chrome plater sometime, after I get my mic working, I don't want to make the chrome too thick, and have a problem getting my records on.
Ok, here is another problem I have noticed that will have you two checking your 124's.
The other day, I decided to give my 124 a coat of wax. I removed the sub and main platters, and then decided to remove the clutch assembly to get underneath it. After waxing the unit, I took a close look at the clutch, and inspected the three lands where the clutch pushes the sub-platter up. I then realized that the factory used a thick grey tape (similar to duct tape) to cover that area, and mine had severe wear on two of the three. After thinking of what I should do, I realized that I had some thick aluminum tape at hand. I replaced all three worn pieces of tape. I am monitoring all three to see how they wear, but so far, so good. I would like to use the original, but I suspect that this will be difficult to source.