8mm Forum: Pathe Son

This is topic Pathe Son in forum 9.5mm for sale/trade/wanted at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=000132

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on April 07, 2017, 03:58 PM:

I had to share this with 9.5 lovers and the only way I have found to give visual images here is to list it on eBay and then copy it to this forum.
I bought this Son a few weeks ago and was absolutely delighted with the cosmetic condition. Even the case, which normally suffers, is in near perfect condition. I am probably not alone in my quest to find projectors in excellent condition and considering this is from the 50's, I doubt that there is better anywhere.
I have seen these advertised (and in the flesh) in abismal condition and been dumbfounded by the price they fetch, so I have purposely listed this at a VERY high price to avoid it being sold.
Just wanted to share with you and hear your comments.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/332177016561?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2648

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on April 07, 2017, 04:18 PM:

Fantastic condition, indeed. Congratulations ! I hope nobody will click on the "Buy it now" button [Smile]

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on April 07, 2017, 04:43 PM:

Thanks Dom
Me too! Perhaps I should have put a higher price on it [Confused]

Posted by Clinton Hunt (Member # 2072) on April 09, 2017, 10:42 PM:

That's a beautiful projector.
As you said,working 9.5mm projectors in good condition are getting harder to find.
If I was filthy rich and I wanted it at any cost then I'd buy it [Smile]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on April 19, 2017, 07:53 PM:

Stunning looking machine! But why does the SON have such a bad reputation?

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on April 20, 2017, 10:03 AM:

The SON was developed from the GEM which was a silent projector. Probably its motor was never conceived for continually running at 24fps hence its often short life when in the SON due to burning out.

9.5mm silent films are designed to come off the feed spool in an anti-clockwise direction, but 9.5 sound films come off the front of the spool which revolves in a clockwise direction. Thus, sound films on the SON have an awkward approach to the gate, even with the later fitted extra roller.

The governor always seemed to give trouble and not control the speed at 24fps. This meant continually using the sliding resistance lever as the motor warmed up during the first reel or so.

At £78, the SON was designed to sell, which it did, but if more thought had gone into it and with better components it could have been an excellent start to collecting 9.5mm sound.

But, no doubt, the price would have had to be increased which might have been a deterrent.

Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on April 21, 2017, 01:13 PM:

Maurice omitted to mention that the amplifier was also very poor. Corners were cut with many of the components and required frequent repair. Motors failed because they were over volted in order to maintain the sound speed of 24f.p.s. Ken Valentine could confirm the information about it as he worked for the repair department at Pathescope. The original design was very good but corners were cut in order to make it an attractive purchase as Maurice stated. It sold at less than half the price of the PAX which also had its faults with its poorly designed and obsolete sound head smoothing system. Ken Finch.

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on April 21, 2017, 05:13 PM:

I think the problems of the motor were exaggerated by the use of the awful thick drive belt which overtensioned the motor making it less efficient and putting unnecessary stress on the motor mounts.I agree that the governor is a problem but projectionists should always be closely in charge of the controls so no big deal to adjust the motor speed during a show. Nearly every Son or Gem I have seen have misaligned inching knobs caused by the disintegrated rubber mounts not helped by the over tight original thick drive belt. New Nitrile belts overcome this problem if the rubber mounts are still good.
Amplifier recapping and modifications are necessary but the Son still remains iconic for all its faults. The Mark 2 is certainly far superior. The one I have is in fantastic almost new condition and I would never contemplate gutting it just to maintain the outward appearance. Does not make historic or economic sense to me.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on April 25, 2017, 10:54 PM:

Did Pathescope design any good equipment? [Roll Eyes]

Seems that all their projectors and cameras have one problem or another. I purchased a PAT camera in 1956 and the results were truly awful, poor image and constantly jamming chargers. That experience spurred my departure from 9.5mm to 8mm where high quality top performing equipment was the norm. I think the company really hastened the demise of 9.5mm by virtue of the poor equipment they sold. I will say though that the ACE was a solid little design well done for its intended purpose.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on April 26, 2017, 02:45 AM:

The Pat camera was another Pathescope product designed to sell at a reasonable price. I have a 1954 price list which shows it was selling for £13/18/3, far less than the Motocamera H with an f/2.5 lens which was £26/10/0.
You could, of course, pay £198/15/0 for the Pathe Webo Special.

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on April 27, 2017, 12:05 PM:

There is plenty of good equipment by Pathe that has survived many years and don't forget 9.5 film predates 8mm by a good few years and was the first and only affordable home film guage of the time. The Pathe Baby was an ingenious machine and many still survive in working condition today. The 200b is also a great projector that turns up regularly in working condition.
I'm sure that Grahame Newnham (THE 9.5 guage authority ) would give you a list of many more examples. I love this guage not only because the picture definition is comparable to 16mm but also for all it's quirkiness.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 17, 2017, 04:19 AM:

I have a SON in my collection but it needs a service and work on the amplifier. I know it has a dodgy reputation.

How can I identify it as a Mark 1 or 2 ?

Is it worth having it serviced and if yes who will do it for me in the UK ?

Or better still "updating " it ?

Your thoughts Gentlemen please ! [Wink]

Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on May 18, 2017, 03:36 AM:

David
The Mk1 used large octel type valves whereas the Mk2 used smaller valves like the ones shown in the photos of my listing. The Mk.1 suffered overheating because of the heat generated by the old large valves which I believe caused other problems. If you have the Mk1 then I don't think it would be cost effective to upgrade, but if it is the Mk2 it should be a reasonable cost to get the amplifier upgraded with modern capacitors and resistors. I got mine done for £70 and it works well now. Any proficient radio engineer should be able to help you.
The Son is not the best 9.5 sound projector, but it is an iconic looking machine for all it's shortfalls.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on May 22, 2017, 05:51 PM:

Terry thank you for that advice. I will check and see which
one I have. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2