Julian Hirsch, a man who almost never said anything negative in his Stereo Review reviews made it a point to mention that the deck sure didn't look like a top of the line unit. The Zero replacement model, GT-55 (by all reports a more sophisticated machine with lower mass magnesium arm, and belt drive) -the overall package-looked decidedly down market. Garrard went from polished brass fittings to unpolished aluminum (counterweight and controls). But you could see the cost cutting in the line over time, especially in the Zero. That said, up until 1970 or so, top of the line Garrards looked classy. The cosmetic factor cannot be overlooked in the marketplace. Sure looks nice if you like the retro style. I guess in the scheme of record players it's not so expensive. They have one with a nice tonearm for nine large (sans cartridge).

I hear they are very popular with retro oriented Japanese audiophiles. Today, prices for those decks are orbiting Jupiter somewhere. Not sure what turntable he advised people to use back then, since as far as I know Dynaco never offered a turntable.ĭ) 301/401 were never big sellers in the US. In the late '50s David Hafler imported stand alone B&O cartridges/arms. My guess was that most people who owned them had a complete B&O system. Didn't they have variable speed for archivists?Ĭ) Bang and Olufsen decks were all integrated arm/cart units, and were quite stylish. Never owned a GT-55 but was always interested in it.ī) Lenco was not very active in the US. A) I owned the following Garrards: Model 30 (came with an 'all in one' stereo featuring a ceramic cart) SL-55B SL-72B SL-95 and three Z-100.

Garrard zero 100 when new