Antiques programme with Susan Calman

[Ed_Dinning]

Hi folks, anyone see this recent programme where the experts or restorers buy an item and have it done up, then sell at an auction.

Danny, one of the "experts" was keen on radiograms and record players. He visited a house clearance warehouse and pontificated , usually incorrectly, on a range of items, with a great many inaccuracies. He finally settled on a Dansette for £20, not a bad price.
It was professionally electrically restored and sold for £90.

Fine, but he needed do do a lot more research on the stylus, deeming it fine after a quick look; warning about ceramic cartridges(?) and waffling on about valves giving a nice warm sound as they "warm up".

They certainly need to do a lot more research !

Ed

[paulsherwin]

The 'experts' on antiques programmes usually know next to nothing about vintage electronics - often they can't even date items correctly.

[llama]

Yes, the Dansette checklist grated on me too. I'm sure it was professionally restored - presumably the quid pro quo was having their details on screen.
I rather imagined they listed what they'd done and the programme's production team garbled the message that they'd changed the original crystal cartridge for a ceramic due to rot and mono-ness.

I do enjoy Susan Calman and her enthusiasm.
Graham

[stevehertz]

I think it's about time we gave up mocking the shortfalls of 'experts' on antique programmes when it comes to vintage radios and the like. It's a given that most of them don't know what they're talking about. These programmes are what they; commercial productions for TV that appeal to the masses, they're not to taken as expert tuition on the subject of the vintage radio genre. As such I don't see the point in slavishly pointing out every mistake made on them. I'm sure this thread will carry on ad infinitum giving this programme and the presenter a good kicking. I say, be mindful of what you wish for, better this type of programme than a lot of the other reality rubbish that we are fed these days. Just my opinion, I know I'm in the minority, and no disrespect Ed!

[paulsherwin]

No, I agree with you Steve. These are general entertainment programmes for a broad nonspecialist audience so they're inevitably going to be very superficial.

[Junk Box Nick]

If these programmes do serve a purpose beyond basic entertainment it is to remind us to take a large proportion of the stuff disseminated by the general media with an amount of scepticism. (I could say pinch of salt but I avoid any extra use of the stuff!)

I am sad Open University type programmes no longer exist but I know out in the wider world I am amongst only a very small minority that found them interesting.

[Mike Phelan]

We agree with both Ed and Steve. Also, the Repair Shop; far better than the other reality junk.

Susan does waffle on a bit, though!

[Lucien Nunes]

I too agree with both Ed and Steve; productions and their nominated experts ought to get most of the technical details right, but often stray from the facts either for production reasons our through being pushed out of their comfort zone of specialist knowledge.

When preparing for my recent very brief contribution to the Secrets of the London Underground, I spent many hours refreshing and increasing my knowledge of the power distribution of the tube network and how mercury-arc rectifiers contributed to it. I focused on information I thought would be interesting and accessible for a non-technical or at least non-electrical audience. On the day, the discussions followed rather divergent lines and I could not bring any of this into context. There was no opportunity, for example, to say anything much about the LTM's big rectifier that I had been specifically brought in to explain.

There is however a difference between missing an opportunity to give out relevant and interesting information, and giving out 'information' that is factually incorrect or misleading.

[vidjoman]

I agree with Lucien - missing an opportunity to give out relevant and interesting information, and giving out 'information' that is factually incorrect or misleading

[Radio Wrangler]

A programme where the aim is at least to make something work again is a notch or two better than the "rip the guts out, paint it purple and nail it to the wall as a light fitting" ones.

Programmes are made by force-fitting things to what the producer imagines. I grew up near Holmfirth* and still have family in the area. I saw it going on for years. Real reality is not good enough, so they make their own.

*Ironically, this was where Bamforths postard company started commercial film making, but it moved to a well known town in California in search of more consistent weather...

[nigelr2000]

Speaking as one of the experts on the repair shop the crew will find the stupidest things really interesting and what I think is an important or really relevant thing is deemed not worth filming. In the item I did 2 of things deemed really worthy of filming were soldering a backup battery in and removing various assemblies to test and repair but the actual repair of said sub assemblies and finding out a bit of history on said item was deemed to boring!
Oh well it's their program and I get paid no matter what they film.

[Bazz4CQJ]

Originally Posted by Junk Box Nick

I am sad Open University type programmes no longer exist but I know out in the wider world I am amongst only a very small minority that found them interesting.

I suspect that if the BBC were to start and air some of those programs, they might get a surprising number of viewers.

I was once involved in making an edition of "Horizon" about matters technical. The "Producer" had no scientific or engineering background, but did have a degree in English from a posh university. The relationship proved "difficult" when I refused to have words put in my mouth, but he went on to have a stellar career doing religious programmes.

As for these salvage and restoration progs, only "Combat Dealers" is watchable. Brucy and his men can be quite entertaining!

B

[Cruisin Marine]

I am so glad I haven't watched TV and mainstream media for longer than I care to remember.

[Junk Box Nick]

Everything has to be sensational, sexed-up, full of drama and ideally have a cliffhanger or two. And whatever you do don’t go into any technical detail. Anything the average viewer may have the slightest difficulty to comprehend will soon have them pressing the channel button on the remote.

I can’t see the BBC doing OU style programmes for general consumption or ever making programmes like Civilisation again. BBC Four steadily dumbed down, is now withering on the vine and is ultimately for the chop. It may disappear from Freeview first.

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

I was once involved in making an edition of "Horizon" about matters technical. The "Producer" had no scientific or engineering background, but did have a degree in English from a posh university. The relationship proved "difficult" when I refused to have words put in my mouth, but he went on to have a stellar career doing religious programmes.

Rather reminds me of conversations with some managers when we had a production problem. Any explanation that had any technical detail soon sent the eyes rolling.

[emeritus]

I too always found those Sunday morning OU programmes interesting.

One on the development of the European cities, featured a road in Strasbourg which had originally been a canal serving the tanneries, and had 'then and now' photos. A few weeks later I went on a course in Strasbourg, and found myself in a hotel on that very street which had originally been one of the tanneries I had seen on the programme.

Another OU programme was on the history of mathematics, explaining how our present "Arabic" (as opposed to Roman) numerals evolved from the actual Arabic numbers. Their first major use in Europe was by the Lombard merchants for their accounting, who did their sums using small squares of wood, each bearing a number, on ledges of wooden counting racks. It became the practice to use some of the squares rotated 90° with respect to the orientation of the original arabic numbers. This happened to the numbers 2, 3, and 8. 8 originally had the form of the greek lower case omega, and the Lombards rotated it and closed the half-loops into circles to avoid confusion with 3. Modern number 4 was originally rotated 45° clockwise (resembling the picnic table sign used on road maps). When in Strasbourg, we visited the cathedral, and found that the altar had its date of construction inscribed in both Roman and modern Arabic numbers, with the number 4 in the original 'picnic table' style.

[Heatercathodeshort]

If you can't get it right, don't bother!
I think these programmes are put together with the 'in crowd'. Oh darling I think your wonderful.. There is plenty of good knowledge on the internet but do they bother to look it up? Strangely we get very few if any requests for advice ref programmes at the Dulwich museum. It costs no more to do it correctly. John.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Bazz4CQJ

I suspect that if the BBC were to start and air some of those programs, they might get a surprising number of viewers.

There are some good programmes about making things, for example the Handmade series on BBC Four and the odd documentary concerning building musical instruments.

There is a lack of general or even specialist science/technology programmes now, I remember Carl Sagan, James Burke. Then we got more 'characters': Magnus Pike, Fred Dibnah but at least people with enthusiasm and practical experience.

As noted above, general programmes that hit on technical details are really just showing what the production company might find interesting to support the story.

At least we have Youtube to watch now, just a case of finding the gems.

[David G4EBT]

There are lots of top notch craftsmen on YouTube, and a lot of dross.

For craftsmen in wood, (they mostly are men, but not always), there are lots of luthiers who make stringed instruments, often using tools they've made themselves. There are also a lot of talented furniture makers and designers too. Sean Evelegh is a talented young furniture designer and maker who recently hosted a series of six podcasts with top UK furniture designers and craftsmen on behalf of Axminster Tools.

Here's his website:

https://www.seanevelegh.com/about-us

On his website, you can see examples of his work and view videos such this one:

https://www.seanevelegh.com/alberto-table

I've previously mentioned 'The New Yorkshire Workshop':

https://www.youtube.com/c/NewYorkshireWorkshop/about

21,755812 views since Feb 2019.

Russ, rather modestly describes himself as ‘a life-long carpenter’.

A glance of his videos will indicate that he’s rather more than that.

I’ve mentioned before his veneered £13,000 turntables.

3.6 million views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKFQ8B4cx64

He has quite a list of videos to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/c/NewYorkshireWorkshop/videos

A man of few words who doesn't 'play to the gallery' but just quietly gets on with it as though you're not there.

Almost 22 million views, yet unlike TV, his site isn't advertised, publicised or dramatised.

For amateur clockmaking and machine-shop modelmaking, look no further than 'Clickspring' in Australia.

Chris, whose website it is, works almost exclusively in brass, and is a craft teacher - how fortunate his pupils are.

Check out his many projects here (including etching brass clock faces):

http://www.clickspringprojects.com/

Hope that's of interest - maybe even inspiration, given that many of the radios we restore have wooden cabinets, often the worse for wear, and we do sometimes get involved in metalwork too.

[Richardgr]

Originally Posted by David G4EBT

...
I've previously mentioned 'The New Yorkshire Workshop':
...
He has quite a list of videos to watch:
[turntable plinth]

That was gripping! Thanks for posting that.

[The Philpott]

-There's also Keith Fenner (all sorts of machining/welding etc), and 'Olfoundryman' who makes aluminium castings. Both have youtube channels.

Heinz Wolff was another character from the broadcasting past that i enjoyed.

Youtube continues to give broadcast telly a good kicking in some respects, and this seems to me to be a good thing. Thanks to tech i can now get YT on the TV- big screen entertainment!

Dave