I was at a local thrift store yesterday and spotted a couple of oddly
shaped boxes with a designation indicating them to be ALTOS boxes. One has
a tape drive of some sort and the other has a floppy disk drive. Does this
mean anything to anyone? IF someone wants them, I could snag them and
ship. I doubt they will cost much more than $10 each.
Dick
----------
> From: Doug <doug_at_blinkenlights.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Alto II (was Re: PDP-8 prices
> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:36 PM
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Marvin wrote:
>
> > I don't know if you noticed or not, but the email address of the seller
is
> > at spies.com. For those of you who might not be aware, spies.com is
one of
> > the largest repositories of arcade game related materials. The guy who
runs
> > it seems to be very well regarded in the collector circles.
>
> That's the guy. He's also well regarded by Alto collectors:
> http://www.spies.com/aek/xerox.html
>
> So, don't worry, if you don't pay him $5K, it'll still have a good home.
> $5K seems like a reasonable price, BTW (assuming he doesn't have a $20K
> reserve). Only 1000 or so were made. It's historic. It would be easy to
> justify. Who's gonna do it?!
>
> Not me! I have absolutely no desire to spend $5K on the thing. And this
> confuses me a little. It's near the top of my wanted list, and I can
> afford it, but the prospect doesn't interest me even a little bit. For
> some reason, I find the idea somewhat offensive.
>
> I guess it's because I think of an acquisition sort of like an
"adoption".
> I'm willing to house the thing, and spend a good chunk of time trying to
> get it working, keep it working, and make it accessible to others. Why
> should I have to pay $5K on top of that?
>
> $500 seems to be my limit for what I consider a reasonable acquisition
> fee. Maybe that will go up as this crazy price spiral continues, but to
> pay more than that, I think you really have to be in the speculative
> investment mindset, and I'm not.
>
> -- Doug
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 25 1999 - 11:24:15 GMT