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

From: Bob Shannon <bshannon_at_tiac.net>
Date: Sun Aug 5 11:50:46 2001

Jeff Hellige wrote:

> >Generally, the term 'serious collectors' is used to describe the minority of
> >people who go for depth over bredth.
>
> Personally, I would have to disagree. I don't believe the
> scope of one's collection, whether it be a collection that goes after
> every single item connected to a single type or machine or whether it
> tries to cover every specific machine from a given period, has much
> to do with whether or not someone is a 'serious' collector.

I'm only describing the terms used in other forms of collecting. You may argue
that their common usage should not apply to classic computer collecting, but
thats really a different matter completely.


> It's the
> effort put forth and the overall quest for knowledge and
> understanding of the systems collected that marks one as a serious
> collector vice the person who goes out and buys a system/systems,
> stashes it aways somewhere and never truly tries to learn about and
> understand what they've accumalated.

I totally agree.

Each system you collect may contain a whole world of unique features, software
and hardware design styles, etc. Some people would prefer to have some
familiarity with many different designs, and others perfer to fully understand
their systems.

Its simply a matter of style, and I don't personally advocate one style over
another.
In fact, each style of collecting complements the other, and that was the point I
was trying to express.

See, if someone needs a part to repair a system that completes their 'serious'
collection in some way, they can usually trade something, perhaps something more
'valuable' or collectable to another collector who has the needed part, but does
not value it as deeply as the first collector.

The first collector gets his 'needed' part, and the second collector gets a very
sweet deal in their own eyes. So whats the problem here?



> I've gone for quite a broad
> collection, covering the first 10 years or so of the microcomputer
> era, but I would call myself a serious collector. It is here for my
> enjoyment and to learn all I can concerning each machine. To me, the
> statement you've made above is trying to put down those who's
> interest are broader in scope. I do agree though that both types of
> collectors are needed.
>
> Jeff

Well Sir, it was not my intention to put anything or anyone down, nor to cast a
better light on any specific style of computer collecting.

Personally, if you enjoy learning all you can about each system, I'd assume you
were a 'serious' collector. This would suggest to me that you probably jump at
the chance to get all the options and features for the items in your collection,
etc.

Myself, I'm an accumulator, bigtime. I do have a small 'serious collection'
within my larger accumulation (of the original 'family of three' early HP
mini's), and a much too large selection of Apollo gear, but then there are
systems I just 'had to have', or that earned a special place in my heart, like me
ELF-II. Most of these have nothing to do with HP mini's.

By far I have many more random systems around here than parts of any cohernet
collection of anything specific. But I'd trade those random systems away in a
heartbeat to get parts for the systems I personally value most.
Received on Sun Aug 05 2001 - 11:50:46 BST