Talk:Garrard Engineering and Manufacturing Company

Commentary

yes, of course the articles about the 301 and 401 should be here, in a 'products' section of the history of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.83.22 (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Just a note to clarify removal of "merge proposal" template. For those unfamiliar with turntable history and specifics, it might well appear that there are a staggering wealth of slightly-differing models appearing through the years. This article, however, discusses what became a standout example of the Idler Drive topology, the Garrard 301, regarded by most writers / critics as a Milestone in turntable design.

As analogies, I think that ford mustang probably deserves it's own entry, as would mickey mouse... A suggestion that they be merged into a larger 'ford motor company' or 'walt disney pictures' article would not serve sensible categorization or accessibility. Other milestone turntables exist, such as the Thorens Td-124 and the Linn Sondek Lp-12, but no short list citing notable developments in turntable design would neglect a separate entry for the Garrard 301. Hope this makes sense in the wikipedia context. Xyzimpf (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the company article is currently two lines long. Is it is the case that the company is predominantly notable because of this turntable design, then the two should share an article. Ford Motor Company and Walt Disney Company are notable in themselves, which is why they have separate articles. Please read WP:SIZE for an overview of when it may be appropriate to merge short articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The company article may be two lines long as of now, but that just means it needs to be expanded, as the company is in fact notable in itself, having a long history in England evolving from Crown Jeweler to jewelled movements to wartime aerial gear, in parallel with it's phonograph pursuits. Neither subject suggests it should be subsumed into the other. Here's a quick excerpt from a history site :

"The story begins right back in 1735 - long before the invention of the gramophone - when Garrard's began to make a name as producers of some of the world's finest jewellery. Such was its reputation that by 1843, when Queen Victoria decided to create an official Crown Jeweller, it was Garrard's that was given the title - and it has kept it ever since. It was not such a leap from precision jewellery such as watches to military range-finders - and because they had both the expertise and the capability, these were Garrard's main contribution to the First World War effort..." [1]

A strong case may be made that --at least--- two separate entries, one for the company overall, and another for the milestone turntable it was later to produce, should be available. The 'Article Size' page you suggested states "If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info?" Rather than merging the articles, the large-umbrella Garrard company entry should be expanded. It's safe to say that both the Garrard 301 and the Garrard Company topics are separately notable in themselves. Xyzimpf (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All the "should be"s in the world don't fix articles, though. If someone is willing to step up and do the work then that's fine by me, but given that the company article is approaching its second birthday I'm not going to hold my breath. The merge is a decent idea in the interim. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me the "fix" for articles that aren't comprehensive is to make them comprehensive, not to subsume other perfectly-complete single-subject articles. The concentration on beefing up the insubstantial article does not serve either the pretty complete little article I've been working on here, nor would the newly franken-merged article make much sense. Do you really suggest that the 3-sentence 'company' article introduce the multi-thousand-word 'turntable' article ? Can't see any sense in that.

Is the inavailability of someone to write the fleshed-out company article really such an emergency ? I would have thought that the drawback of miscategorizing the 'turntable' article under that umbrella would outweigh any impromptu housekeeping benefit you may be after..... I don't think the merge is a sensible idea. Xyzimpf (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written

The main concept of the page is acceptable with some great insight into the turntable's history and significance but it needs a major overhaul in terms of it's writing. Sentences such as "must have speed accuracy and wow and flutter specifications as well as low rumble - low frequency vibration" are extremely pooorly worded and at best technically inaccurate whilst at worst extremely misleading. I have cleaned the page as much as my competent English skills and technical knowledge will allow but this needs to be completed by someone with specialist knowledge of these turntables. (Raymond Sanders (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC))

Furthering my previous point I suggest the Iconic paragraph be removed, save the first sentence which should added to the main text. Discussing the popularity of Vinyl recordings and analogue reproduction methods seems irrelevant to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Sanders (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that you are right. Some fanatic will probably just add it back in, though.93.106.69.28 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Garrard 301 and 401 Transcription Turntables

This section is nearly identical to the article Garrard Transcription Turntable, either merge or delete it 71.241.153.185 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation

How was the name pronounced? With a "Hard-G" or a "J" sound? Casey (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)