On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Bob Shannon wrote:
> So vastly more value is placed on the fact that the parts 'look' new
> than their actual rarity, or even the fact that RCA shipped and sold
> this processor as a CPU assembly on a tiny PCB. Apparently the true
> historical context of the 1801 CPU is less important than appearance,
> and the same appears to be true of its functional condition as well.
<...>
> I'm sure most would agree that a NOS CPU board is far more likley to be
> functional that a pair of never-been-soldered chips. So we see that at
> least in this case, appearance is more highly valued that actual rarity
> or functionality, and even moreso that the true historical perspective
> of the devices themselves.
This is typical of fad collectors. Appearance is valued over substance
or functionality. It is collecting mostly out of competition. It is
typically human.
For me, collecting has always been natural (i.e. I'm a pack rat). But I
also just have a basic appreciation of all things old. I just happened to
combine this appreciation with my passion for computers and became a
collector.
I also don't really consider it a hobby. For me it's a way of life.
> Most of the stocks of repair parts for antique pocket watches come from
> new old stocks found in various locations, but some people are forces to
> scavenge parts from other non-working watches. Some people actually
> collect repair parts for these facinating vintage machines, but only for
> the purpose of restoring and repairing the watches, and not because the
> parts themselves are assigned value seperate from the watch that uses them..
An apt analogy.
> But its clear that the development of the chip is a far more important
> historical development than the many innovations in pocket watch design,
> so the chip by itself has taken on an aura of collectability that just
> does not reflect its actual value or historical context. One can
> imagine that 50 years from now, someone might view an early
> microprocessor chip with some respect, while today no one is going to be
> impressed with a mainspring from a watch.
Chips in themselves have histories and stories behind them. They have a
specific function that can be described and in some cases appreciated;
they may have pushed the boundaries of electrical engineering at some
point, making them significant in that regard; they may have been designed
by significant persons, etc. Collecting and documenting chips in and of
themselves is completely valid. Once we get beyond the fad phase, the
hobby will have matured.
Computer collecting went through the same phase. I think the hobby has
now mostly matured.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Sun Nov 17 2002 - 12:42:00 GMT