In Reply to: RE: RCA LC1As - value? posted by Vril Disc on August 24, 2007 at 15:58:56:
My jesting post below suggesting a value of $100 for the pair of LC1A's notwithstanding, I think it's a little misleading to suggest that these speakers are either common or inexpensive. I have collected these (and other quality vintage speakers) for many years, and have seen the prices go from ridiculously low ($24, in original cabinet) to stratospheric (over $10k/pair in mint 'furnace' style cabinets). I believe these are one of the finest sounding speakers ever produced, and they are starting to get their due respect. However, not all RCA 'duo-cone' speakers are created equal, which may be where the widely varying reports of sale price originate.
A little history: the first 'duo-cone' speakers were called the MI-11411 (no 'A') and did not have the seven 'camel bumps' on the cone, nor did they have the 'butterfly' deflector on the tweeter. They were available from RCA in either the 'furnace' style cabinet (in gray or walnut) or the wall wedge style that mounted on the wall/ceiling above the mixing board in the control room. These are the speakers, in walnut 'furnace' style cabinets, that MonkeyPunch was asking about. They are the rarest and probably the most valuable of the lot. If you bought mint pairs of these, in those cabinets (also mint) for $1,000 or $1,200, you got a deal (and I'd love to see pictures!)
The second iteration was the LC-1A, with the aformentioned 'camel bumps' and tweeter deflector. Again available in wall wedge cabinets, as well as the SC-15 style home furniture cabinet. However, they are not without problems. I have seen many 'mint' drivers that were near to useless. First, the rolled paper surround is prone to fatigue cracks and failure. If an LC-1A has a fatigued surround, it's not 'mint', it's on its way out. You can treat it with varying remedies, but it's a band-aid at best. Also, the early tweeters were very fragile and prone to failure. Many didn't survive the solid-state, high power era. Lesser problems include pushed in 'camel bumps' and dirty or misaligned voice coil/gaps. These latter problems can usually be fixed. However, I know of no source for new woofer or tweeter cones for these speakers (if you do, PLEASE let me in on it). I have seen people scratch build surrounds in order to save a pair of these apeakers, though. The reason people go to so much trouble is that these are arguably the best sounding of all 'duo-cone' RCA's. Also the most fragile--caveat emptor.
Next were the LC-1B and LC-1C. The 'B' is an LC-1A with a different surround. I've never had a 'C', but I'm told by reputable sources that they did not have an Alnico magnet. Most of these came in a tall, chamfered-front cabinet, or the wall wedge, or the SC-15 style, though they do show up in Karlsons and some home built cabinets too. They hold up better than the 'A' due to the treated accordian surrounds and new tweeters, but they don't sound as good IMHO. Bargain hunters wanting to try the 'duo-cone' sound should start here. The prices quoted by Vril Disc above are in line with what you could expect to pay for nice 'B' or 'C' versions in original cabinets.
While I agree that the 'duo-cone' family WERE relatively common, having been produced from the late 1940's through the 1950's, I don't think they're so common today. I have pulled these out of projection rooms, radio stations, and recording studios, among other places. Most in wall wedge cabinets. Though they were produced en masse, many did not survive (for the reasons noted above). Many of the rest are in happy homes of collectors or listeners. Like the original Quad electrostatic, these seem to stay in listening rooms for a very long time compared to most speakers. All these factors tend to make them a little difficult for most enthusiasts to find. Rare plus desirable usually equals expensive, which is just what's happening to LC-1A's.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- May I Respectfully Disagree? - gilmorneau 15:27:35 08/28/07 (3)
- RE: May I Respectfully Disagree? - lking69092 07:25:08 06/02/12 (0)
- RE: May I Respectfully Disagree? - jweiss 19:53:40 08/31/07 (1)
- RE: May I Respectfully Disagree? - gilmorneau 10:33:13 09/04/07 (0)