Collections vs. accumulations, was Re: How many collectors?

From: Bob Shannon <bshannon_at_tiac.net>
Date: Sat Aug 4 10:38:16 2001

Vintage computer collecting is really no different from many other forms of
collecting, its simply less common.

Vintage car buffs clearly are more advanced in their restoration and repair
capabilities than vintage computer collectors as a group, but I beleive that
this is really only a matter of a greater demand for services.

Firearms collecting (in the USA) is probably the most similar form of
collecting, as there is a lot of emphisis on the details and variations of
specific models and the geneology of design, etc. (and that you may get a visit
from overzealous officials of the persuit of your hobby!).

In all these forms of collecting, as well as stamps, coins, and any antiques,
you have 2 classes of people active in the hobby. Perhaps 80% to 90% of those
active in the hobby have an 'accumulation' of interesting things, while a
minority have a true 'collection'.

Whats the differance between an accumulation and a collection?

Its simply a matter of depth versus bredth.

Some people may wish to accumulate one example of several breeds of
minicomputers, but has no desire to use their limited space for many examples of
a single model of line of machine.

On the other hand, each breed of machine holds a world of details, software,
quirks, and history. So others may wish to have a deeper understanding of a
smaller segment of vintage computers.

Clearly building an accumulation is much easier than building a true collection,
simply because nearly any vintage system can drop into some form of context with
what you have already. Given how closely related all computers are, its not
hard to find some context that relates very distant machines.

Building a collection on the other hand requires a much more selective approach,
where many interesting finds might be passed by, or traded for specific things
needed to fill any gaps in the collection, and a dedication to the study of a
limited scope of collectable systems.

Generally, the term 'serious collectors' is used to describe the minority of
people who go for depth over bredth.

Personally, I feel that both forms (accumulations and 'serious' collections) are
important to the growth of any form of collecting, as collectors trade and swap
amonghts themselves. Also its clear that some people may have a real depth to
their collection of some machines, while also having an accululation of others.

As a result, I really don't like to make any distinction between accululators
and 'true' collectors. The only really meaningful thing, is how many other
people are interested in the items your seeking, and can you work with them to
everyone's mutual benifit?

Some people may stumble onto a very old, or very rare machine, but lack the
skills or knowledge to really make the machine perform like it was new. So
simple possession does not make one a collector of any standing. That being the
case, simple quantity also fails to make the grade of 'serious collector'.

A massive accumulation of different systems, each partly imcomplete,
undocumented, and poorly understood clearly fails to be a serious collection,
even if your spending large sums on storage space. Lining all the systems up in
pretty rows does not qualify either.

But a single, complete system, documented and understood, can be a very nice
collection because of the detailed effort it takes to assemble something like
this, especially if the system in question is a restoration, or a newly
assembled system made from all original parts.

In my opinion, if you have searched for years for a specific item, you are a
serious collector, even if you have not found it yet! My reason for this is
that you have probably done a lot of research, and have a deep understanding of
the item your after.

But you may also have a small number of fairly common systems, but also have
done the detailed research and documentation to claim the title of a 'serious
collector', for whatever that is worth.

In my opinion,

Ernest wrote:

> I think that I read in one of the articles about VCF east that Sellam
> thought that there might be 500 serious collectors. I can't remember the
> exact quote but it was something like that.
>
> I was just curious to know if that number (whatever it was) is approximately
> correct? How do you define "serious collector?" Is it by number of machines
> a collector has? Would someone who has a handful of very rare computers
> qualify as serious? What if someone spent years doing an educated hunt for
> just one particular system that no one else has, and found it. Would they be
> a serious collector? Or is it based on the kind of computer being
> collected -like DEC vs. Apple, etc.?
>
> I'm interested in peoples opinions on this. Also, this post is NOT about
> Sellam's exact quote, it's about the idea behind it.
>
> Ernest
Received on Sat Aug 04 2001 - 10:38:16 BST