Whats wrong with chip collecting?

From: John Galt <gmphillips_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sun Nov 17 14:19:12 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Shannon" <bshannon_at_tiac.net>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:10 AM
Subject: Whats wrong with chip collecting?


> Its clear that there is friction between the worlds of vintage computer
> collecting and chip collectors.
>
> A disinterested party would probably assume that these two islands of
> peoples would be highly interdependant and mutually supportive, but
> commonly this is not the case at all.
>
> I recently exchanged a number of emails with several chip collectors
> regarding a very rare RCA 1801 chip set. I have to say that dealing
> with the chip collectors left me very confused. I do think that there
> are some problems in the chip collecting community as a whole.
>
> This is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with
> collecting old and rare chips in itself. But the current ways in which
> values are assigned to chips is very wrong, and this does lead to the
> destruction of rare parts in some cases.
>
> As an example, one collector lists a RCA 1801 chip set at $1,500, for a
> pair of IC's that have never been soldered onto a board, and are in
> unknown functional condition. These same collectors will turn their
> noses up at a much earlier, much less common RCA 1801 CPU assembly that
> is unused new old stock.
>
> 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.
> The fact that RCA soldered the part onto a module lowers the value to a
> greater degree than its rarity increases it, despite the fact that this
> is what the part is for, or the implications on the functionality of the
> parts? This is not an easy position to defend.

You are correct. It's really an issue of condition. Chip collectors are
kinda like coin collectors. A coin with a hole drilled in it so someone
could wear it is "ruined" as far as most coin collectors are conerned.
The fact that you could still spend the coin is irrelevant.

Likewise, chip collectors want a chip to be as close to the condition
it was when it came off the assembly line as possible.

For example, if the 1801 set was not soldered on a
board but was instead had the word "good" written on it
with a magic marker you would also find that collectors
would also frown on that.

It's really no different that someone paying more for an "original"
condition Altair 8800 verses paying less for one that has a few
extra holes drilled in it, etc.

>
> 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.
>
> If we were to look at a similar collectable item, and the needed parts
> to keep that collectable running, we find an excellent parallel in
> antique pocket watches. Here is a collectable item that holds value,
> and appreciates much like many vintage computers do today. The parts
> are no longer made, and some parts wear and fail during normal operation
> much like our vintage hardware does.
>
> 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..
>
> Mainsprings will fail, they are in effect, consumable parts (often
> lasting for decades, but still consumable). New replacement mainsprings
> for a turn-of-the-century Waltham watch are no longer made and are
> becomming rather rare. Has the price of vintage Waltham mainsprings
> shot upwards?
>
> No, not much at all, because at time goes by, fewer and fewer vintage
> Waltham's cross watchmakers benches for repair. Value is based on
> supply and demand in a simple and rational way. One good reason for
> this is that there is zero practical value to collecting pocet watch
> parts unless they are going to be used in repairing pocket watches, and
> so the watch parts collectors are the same watchmakers who perform the
> repairs.
>
> This is not how chip collecting is working today at all. Collectors are
> collecting chips, yet are commonly disinterested in collecting the
> machines that actually use these parts. Lacking and practical grounding
> (or worse, electrical grounding) in the practical context of the parts,
> their perceptions of value are often highly distorted to the point of
> being flat-out wrong.
>
> 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.
>
> But a fully operational vintage pocket watch will still be far far more
> interesting than a dusty old chip of unknown (or unknowable) functional
> condition.
>
> Taking the analogy between vintage computers and antuique watches a step
> further, the situation we have today is as if the watchmakers (people
> reparing old machines) and those collecting the parts needed for those
> repairs are seperate groups (at least in part), and the parts collectors
> are trying to assign value to the parts independantly from the value of
> the machines needing those parts.
>
> So maybe chip collector #1 has a C8080 rather than a C8080A. Fine, so
> what? If its just a chip sitting around its far less interesting
> (historically) than any sort of 8080 thats actually running. This is no
> different than a old but rather common pocket watch in perfect running
> condition being more valuable than a much rarer pocket watch in poor
> condition that does not run and needs parts that are not available.
>
> Also once that C8080 is placed into a collection of other 8080 CPU's,
> its going to be assigned a higher value, 'Oh, I cannot sell just that
> one, it would break up the set'. This only further distorts the
> perception of value issue running through the chip collecting community,
> and further seperates the parts from the machines that use them.
>
> So what (in my opinion) is wrong with chip collecting? Simply put,
> vintage chip collecting as a seperate activity from the repair of
> vintage hardware only serves to distort the value of the parts
> themselves at the expense of those who do restore vintage hardware.
> Based on every other collectable I'm aware of, the functional whole
> item is always more valuable than the parts it contains. Either chip
> collectors need to get a grip on their misperceptions of value, or
> vintage machine collectors need to greatly re-assess the values of their
> operational hardware.
>
> Probably equal measures of both are in order.

I see your point concerning the part vs. the whole concept
but chip collectors just don't think that way. I'm not sure why
that is. I mean, people don't collector car alternators, pistons,
etc (well maybe someone does but it would seem kinda strange)

I guess the same goes for people who collect old phones.
The fact that most phone collectors don't plug them into
to a working antique phone system does not seem "odd".

Now perhaps, if there was a group of "vintage phone system"
enthusiasts they would complain that "phone collectors"
are driving up the prices on vintage phones and making it
harder for them to maintain their vintage phone systems.

Why is an old phone is not viewed are part of a larger system?
Why do people collect old phones but not old car alternators?
I don't know but I bet that people will still be collecting old
phones 100 years from now but I doubt that old car alternators
will ever be a popular collectible.

On the otherhand, I'm always amused when a vintage computer
"collector" says they think that chip collecting is "odd". If there
was ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black!

You said "Either chip collectors need to get a grip on their misperceptions
of value, or vintage machine collectors need to greatly re-assess the values
of their operational hardware". I would suggest the later. I think that
given their historical significance, rare vintage computers are drastically
under valued. While values may go up and down over the short term, I
fully expect that over the long term, prices on rare vintage computers
are going to nowhere but up.

Time will tell.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 17 2002 - 14:19:12 GMT