AF6AY wrote:

... The idea is to take some
modern technology and make it look as if it was manufactured in another
time and place. So while a person might take an Ipod and etch an old
fashioned picture in it, or a guitar and modify it, they wouldn't likely
make an instrument like a tuning fork.

Yeah, you're right on what Steampunks advertise themselves as, but
that is also a small niche activity in home workshopping, not just
electronics. There's much more to be found in home wood-working
catalogs in regards to 'retro' design and home workshop construction.

A year or so ago, another sent me some links to old electronics,
especially metrology, such as a couple of old reproductions of
General Radio Company instrument catalogs. Interesting for the
moment to reflect on 'style' insofar as instrumentation designed
in the period of about 1880 to 1930. [the 'Victorian Era' is in the
beginning part of that mentioned half-century period]

In that half-century, the high (relative) cost of instruments was
coupled with a certain 'style' of 'craftsmanship' that involved
very-nice, but really non-functional, wood bases and lovely
'engraved' scales and rules (more useful to the instrument) plus
less useful all-purpose connector posts. To justify the high
labor cost (reflected in the product cost) of working with new-
fangled electrical things, the designers opted for that particular
'style' based on what could be made then but really from the
(guessed) customer's preferrence for 'looks.' Usually those
customers had to justify those new instruments to their funding
entities (managers, academic grant givers, etc.). 'Style' is a
subliminal kind of influence but any market is governed by it
to sell product.

General Radio is interesting in instrument company evolution.
In their beginnings there was no real 'style' and they depended
on the newness of any sort of electrical standards to sell their
products. It seems that GR was the first to market a ready-built
oscilloscope. At least in the USA. It had a tiny screen and was
built in three sections. That was in the early 1930s. In the later
1930s DuMont came out with a one-piece 'scope and larger face CRT.
That became the 'style' setter for many years, was even copied by
that post-WWII upstart company of Howard Vollum's called Tektronix.
Vollum's designs not only improved the innards but also exterior,
that which the majority classify as 'style.' With their plug-in
vertical function modules Tektronix now set the 'style' and
DuMont just couldn't keep up. Even HP got into competition and
used the same 'style' of physical form on those...but took many
years of catch-up to the clear leader of oscillography, Tektronix.
GR was left way behind in oscilloscopes, giving up on that market
after the end of WWII.

But, GR, now under new leadership at the end of the 1950s, got its
exterior 'style' together with a 'new look.' Much more intrinsic
visual appeal of form-fit-color in an instrument. They were aided
by new methods of metal and plastic forming and some imagination
applied realistically to that 'style.' Alas, they didn't get with
the new technology intensively enough and eventually dropped out,
despite the high accuracy using old technology and 'craftsmanship.'
GR had also opted to try a 'luddite' form of PR on their
instrument constructions, featuring ONE technician 'doing every-
thing' of an instrument, 'no production line methods.' Bad PR and
the wrong kind of style of advertising to a customer base that
was largely involved IN production. 'Style' is lots of things, not
just in its outward physical appearance.

Take Hallicrafters for radios. A Biggie among amateurs before WWII
and in the immediate post-WWII period. The pre-war 'style' peak
might have been the SX-28 HF receiver just from appearance. Their
post-war 'style' peak might have been the SX-62 Big Dial AM-FM and
'shortwave' band receiver. They, like National Radio, came out
with a consumer product TV receiver and (like National) failed to
penetrate the market with their 7" electro-static deflection design.
Hallicrafters had a better exterior 'style' than National's wooden
cabinet model but was doomed in not going towards bigger screens.
Collins Radio beat both out in commercial and military equipment
after WWII. Collins Radio established its own 'style' which
dominated lots of aesthetic sensibilities back then. RACAL in the
UK was a strong rival in that. Hallicrafters just couldn't get with
the program after around 1960 and just drooped, eventually
dropping out.

Market rivalry in the USA began to be taken over more and more
by off-shore designer-makers around 1960. WWII was over a long
time by then and off-shore production in electronics was ramping
up on all markets of electronics, including amateur radio. The
Big 3 (Icom-Yaesu-Kenwood) began their domination, establishing
their own exterior AND interior 'styles'. Lower labor costs (and
smarts) made the Japanese the leading Asian off-shore producer
first, quickly followed by Taiwan and China. Their 'style' of
electronics became THE style to copy, engraved in visual centers
of many minds for a quarter century.

But to return to topic, The concept of making a station conform to an
aesthetic is not all that unusual.

I'm NOT saying that nor ever implied it. But, let's take it in
context. Who or what determines a 'retro' look? And what is its
appeal to certain folks?

A half-century ago ought to qualify as 'retro' to most. But how
many were alive or experienced in such period radios? I was in my
twenties in the 1950s but nowhere would I consider 'going retro' to a
stark utilitarian environment kind of radio communications that I
got started in over a half century ago. Neither does the 'style'
of electronic things done in a period before 50 years ago appeal
to very many. There are SOME exceptions: The Zenith Transoceanic
line of portable receivers spans the pre-WWII and post-WII times
with its own unique 'style' that is unmistakable. It IS attractive
to so many that it has a large fan base on the Internet, several
URLs, all for one model line. It has a distinct STYLE to its design.

I'm not against 'having fun' with radios. With receivers (or
transceivers) one spends a LOT of time looking at front panels
whether or not a user realizes that. Subliminally, at least, the
appearance of a front panel, its control arrangement, colors,
indications, etc., enter the visual cortex and become memory.
Will added brass geegaws enter into the mind as adornement for
the memory just because they look pretty at first glance?.

Our stations can be an expression of
ourselves, and we can either place the items on the desk and be done
with it, or we can embellish the room as we see fit. It is just another
way to have some fun.

I don't agree with that entirely. First of all, an amateur radio
is a communications device, not an article of 'interior design.'
Secondly, today's ready-built amateur radios can stand on their
own as far as appearance and 'style' is concerned. That includes
most peripheral equipment. OTHER people did the styling of all
those, contemporaries, not some long-gone folks of another era a
century ago.

Thirdly, we have to be careful about 'style influencing.' No one
should dictate what or how we 'have fun' in radio other than technical
requirements of radio regulation. That includes 'style' matters
in my mind. Fashion styles exist to Sell More Clothes and Make
More Money for clothing makers...it was not really about aesthetic
appearance despite what the PR write-ups say (those write-ups are
crafted to help sell those clothes). Radio equipment isn't in such
a 'style' area. One either feels comfortable with a radio or not.
That covers its technical performance first, appearance a second.
The amateur operator will be looking at amateur radio equipment
the most at any home station. If other non-radio-interested members
of a household see it often, it should not (for their consideration)
appear too offensive to them.

All-mechanical things are fine fun for those who like to do that.
Old-time telegraphy equipment is one area well suited for such
reproduction. Many amateurs like to collect manual keys. Fewer
can make their own without ALSO having at least a small machine
shop at their disposal. The same holds true for electrochemical
treatment beyond simple PCB etching (which very few see once it
has been loaded, tested, and put into equipment). I've learned to
do simple tasks in all those areas but have found that working in
wood and plastic basic materials is easier for hobby construction.
It is simpler to do even if not flashy. I just don't have, or care to
have,
a small all-purpose factory on the premises for any sort of
manual construction hobby.

Now, MY likes or dislikes don't apply to others. I've been writing
(hopefully) in generalities. All of electronics is generally based
on FORWARD-LOOKING technologies and 'going retro' in any regard may
be of momentary aesthetic appeal. There ARE devotee of equipment
of a particular radio era. 'Mileage varies.'

73, Len AF6AY