Which is more desirable?

[dhermann1]

Calling all antique radio afficianados:
Which do you think is the more desirable classic Hi Fidelity tube radio, the 1938 Philco 38-690 or the 1939 Scott Phantom Deluxe? They're both Stradivarius instruments of their type and era, but which one would you choose?

 

[KilroyCD]

worthlesswithoutpics

The Philco 38-690 is an extremely nice radio, but I'm unfamiliar with the other. Any pics?

 

[Justdog]

Radios

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/justdog/EH_Scott_Phantom_Deluxe_1939_Feldt.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/justdog/1938Philco38-690Rolltop.jpg
My pick:eusa_clap

 

[dhermann1]

Scott

Err . . . Can't post active you-know-whats. . .
I believe it had 22 tubes. They both have the arrangement of dual chassis, with most tubes on the upper chassis, and another chassis underneath, next to the speakers. Scott was strictly high end stuff, 20 - 22 tubes, all gleaming like jewels. Philco, on the other hand, was famous for solid middling class radios, but had been developing high end models as well.
Edit: Justdog: You got 'em.

 

[Tomasso]

Take the lighter one

They both look big and heavy.

Shipping......:rage:

 

[vitanola]

I would certainly go with the Scott. Both sets are excellent, but the Scott has, as I recall, a somewhat better front end. the Philco high Fidelity sets that I've worked on all seem to be plagued by the odd dead spots in some of the upper short wave bands.

Both sets are of excellent quality, however.

Given the rather thin fare available on the sir these days, you might well consider a high-end combination, such as a Capehart, or perhaps a Scott with a record changer. These machines play the (still easily available) Swing Era 78's wonderfully well.

The RCA D-22 combination is a terribly underrated set. 4 2A3's in parallel push-pull, a really hot front end, and an exceptionally good phonograph, with the RCA volume expander, which when properly adjusted is capable of astounding performance.


It is an awfully attractive set, too!

 

[Brinybay]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d138/justdog/EH_Scott_Phantom_Deluxe_1939_Feldt.jpg

I like this one.

 

[dhermann1]

Well, the reason I ask is that there's one of each (the Scott and the Philco) for sale at the moment, and I'm tempted. I certainly can't afford both, but I'm debating their merits as investments as well as objects of desire. The Philco needs considerable restoration. The Scott looks better, but has not been professionally tested (and won't be) so it's somewhat of a pig in a poke.
(Just as a cross thread feature, I thought I'd throw in a classic old timey vintage phrase, there.)
As far as playing is concerned, I have an AMT 3000 transmitter, so that's how I listen to old radio material on old radios.

 

[KilroyCD]

Having three Philcos, I'm kind of partial to them. But the Scott is a beauty!

 

[Flivver]

I have both the Philco and the Scott. I'd have a tough time choosing between the two, but in the end...I'd pick the Philco.

Both sets have their merits. On the whole, I think both Philco and RCA receivers in the 1930s have better, more thorough engineering than any of their competitors...Scott and McMurdo Silver included. I have found well restored RCA and Philco sets to out-perform any of their competition.

But, RCA and (especially) Philco did not always use the highest quality components in their well engineered sets. Philco capacitors, in particular, are notorious! Scott, on the other hand, used the finest components they could buy. And, the 1937-38 Philcos can be hard to service due to their two-level chassis.

But the Scott has that beautiful chrome chassis! The Philco chassis is plain metal, just like the cheapest set in their line.

On the matter of cabinet design, that depends on personal taste as well as which cabinet the Scott comes with. Scott offered the customer a choice of cabinets...some attractive, and some not. I'm *very* partial to Philco cabinet design in the 1930s. Much of it was done by some of the top industrial designers of the day. I personally think the Philco 38-690 is a particularly nice example of late-30s art-deco radio design.

If you prefer a top-end Philco with a more traditional cabinet, the 37-690 is a good choice. The tuner performance is just as good as the 38-690 but the '37 uses 6B4 triode output tubes which (arguably) sound cleaner than the 38's 6L6 beam-power pentodes.

Also, the Phantom Deluxe was a mid -evel model from a prestige brand. In 1939, the Scott Philharmonic was their top-of-the-line. The 38-690 was the top of the Philco line in 1938. And Philco was the top-selling mainstream brand at that time.

In terms of rarity, I've found the Philco 38-690 to be quite a bit harder to find than the Phantom Deluxe. But the Scott may have more investment value due to the prestige of the brand.

As difficult as the choice is between these two sets, I'm sure you'll enjoy whichever one you pick. There's really no wrong choice here.

 

[Flivver]

The RCA D-22 combination is a terribly underrated set. 4 2A3's in parallel push-pull, a really hot front end, and an exceptionally good phonograph, with the RCA volume expander, which when properly adjusted is capable of astounding performance.

QUOTE]

I strongly agree with you about the RCA D-22. A friend of mine has one and it's an impressive performer as well as an extremely nice looking set. I've wanted one for years!

One of my first radios was a 1938 RCA 813K (13 tubes). This was one of the best performing sets I've ever had. I logged over 600 AM stations on it back in the late 1960s when I was in high school.

 

[Burnsie]

Having three Philcos, I'm kind of partial to them. But the Scott is a beauty!

Having two Philcos of my Grandpas I too vote Philco!

 

[Mr. K.L.Bowers]

Philco

I do have a 37-116 Philco, which was one step down from the 690. It has a great sound. The automatic tuners on these were crap. Philco only used them for two years and made so many changes in that short time that it is almost impossible to find any two alike.
That being said, I love my Philcos. I own 48 of them.

But......Scott was one of THE best of it's time.

 

[John in Covina]

They are both fine looking radios, but the roll top one catches my eye.