"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
If I spent $700, I'd be dang sure I got a real radio, not a relic of
mid 50's technology.

Some American posted on uk.radio.amateur earlier this week about a Racal
RA-17 (the original Wadley Look receiver) that he'd just bought for $700 on
ebay. When he plugged it in it blew a fuse, but he still thought he got a
great deal. There must not be enough meds to go around.

Dunno about you, but I know which line I'd be standing in....
Me use a SX-100 on the ham bands? Ya gotta be kidding....I want
something stable. An SX-100 is not very stable to todays standards.

I had the same model, the Mark II, new in 1962. It was stable enough in
terms of drift, but on 20 and above the mechanical stability was poor, as in
microphonics. And the bandspread on the higher bands was lousy, as it was on
all receivers like that. My parents bought me the SX-100 when I got my
Novice license. It was better than the 1930s console radio I got for 75
cents at the Salvation Army and built a BFO for, but I always lusted after a
Drake 2-B (the Hallicrafters was a 'surprise'--I wasn't consulted or I'd
have gone for the 2B.) Years later I finally got to own two 2Bs (one for the
Ranger II and one for the Eico 720, couldn't have a transmitter without a
receiver). I agree, it was a good radio for its time. But it didn't have
general coverage, either. Different applications. Fortunately, I got the
nostalgia thing out of my system, and I made a small profit when I sold the
boatanchors. If all I wanted were a receiver and I had $700 to blow, I'd
look for an R8. Ham transceivers are good for ham radio but the general
coverage receivers weren't designed for program listening, and it shows. But
you're right, a transceiver would still be a better deal than that SX-100.
Who knows, he might get his price. All he needs is one sad case with more
money than sense to feel a twinge of unrequited childhood angst.

"PM"