Price guide for vintage computers

From: Eric Chomko <vze2wsvr_at_verizon.net>
Date: Thu Nov 1 21:54:22 2001

Tony Duell wrote:

> > > Let me give an example, from an area where there is already a price
> > > guide -- HP calculators.
> > >
> > > Now, I like HP calculators (as do all insane people ;-)). I also try to
> > > obtain the most battered, scratched, etc examples I can find. I repair
> > > them, get them running again, and _use_ them.
> >
> > Everything is fine with what you state as there is no right or wrong way to collect,
> > IMO. The only exception I would take about your statements above is, if in your quest
> > for beat up machines that YOU would beat them up in order to get them to your liking.
>
> Don't be stupid. I _like_ HP calculators, OK. I spend a lot of time
> repairing and restoring them. To use.

I understand. I never accused you of defacing any items. Got an HP-11 in Texas
this summer at a yard sale for a buck, and it works!

>
>
> The only reason I prefer beat-up machines is becuase I am not going to
> significantly lower the value by using them. Even though HP machines were
> very well made back then, they still get worn when used a lot. Markings
> rub off, the silver pain on the trim wears off, and so on. And, of
> course, I am the sort of person to attempt hardware modifications.
>

Hacking is good.

>
> So I'd rather have beat-up (but working) machines becuase then I am not
> going to lose money by using them. Obviously I can use better-grade
> machines for this without deliberately damaging them.
>
> If I have 2 of a particular machine, then it's tbe one in poorer
> condition that I tend to use. If I only have one, then I use that
> anyway, possibly doing a bit of accidental damage (scratching paint,
> etc).
>
> But why on earth would I deliberately lower the value of my machines by
> 'beating them up'. I don't. Period.
>

I never said that you did.

>
> > I get both the hacker-mentatlity and the collector-mentality and see where they are
> > at odds with one another. But on the same token, given the way of things that have
> > come from obscurity to everyday mainstay items; computers, and early ones at that,
> > are bound to be collectibles.
>
> A separate rant of mine is that the computers that are most 'collectible'
> are neither the ones that are technically the best, nor (IMHO) the ones
> that are most historically significant.
>
> The former fact, though is good for people like me, as it means the
> technically interesting machines tend to be relatively cheap :-)
>

Examples please.

>
> > > Hang on a second... I am only saying that _I_ don't want to treat
> > > computers as an investment. If other people do, well, I guess they have a
> > > right to do that. It doesn't mean I have to approve of what they are
> > > doing. And if it spoils the hobby for me, you can bet I am going to moan.
> >
> > As you are entitled to. As for me, I'll hack and collect all the same. And I can't
> > imagine a really good hack as adding any less value to a real nice existing
> > collectible. Others (purists) may disagree, in their quest for mint-in-the-box, etc.
>
> I feel there's a place for both, actaully. In the future some people are
> going to want to see 'perfect' examples of the machines. But equally,
> machines that have been hacked are often more typical of the machines as
> they were actually used. And of course if I can discover repair methods
> from said hacks (as in finding replacements for unobtainable custom
> parts) then it may help repair other machines in the future with less
> 'damage' to those machines.
>

In the early days of kit computers some hacks were necessary. With a single
trace cut and jumper SWTPC 6800's had doubled the clock speed. The reason
for the original slowness was due to memory speed on the 4K RAM boards.
When faster RAM came out, the hacks were made.

Eric

>
> -tony
Received on Thu Nov 01 2001 - 21:54:22 GMT