To me, the SX-28 is somewhat like the Zenith TransOceanic -- a fine set of
its type, yet still readily available. As a collector, it's hard to look
down my nose at any combination of good performance and current
affordability. I spent considerable time restoring my first SX-28. The
second one, cherry by anyone's definition, is still waiting in the workshop
for some winter when I can do the job right :-)

Sure, comparable or better radios were manufactured during those years, and
a very few of those fall into the genuinely "rare" category (I even own one
or two). IMHO, the big attraction of radios such as the SX-28 and TO is
their rich history. Who listened to this set, and what was playing then? The
mind wanders . . . .

Regards,

Phil N.

If the SX28 is rare/scarce, then is the SX23 in the "hen's teeth" category?

"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...
I mean it. My S-118 Mk II is lonely.

Ok Steve. How much work do you wan't to do and how much do you wan't to
spend? Be careful what you wish for. The 28 is one radio that will make you
feel like you've done some work. Just ask Phil Nelson. Right Phil? The A
versions a little easier. I like alining the 28s better than the 28A because
those iron core trans/coils in the RF deck of the 28As can get stuck or be
loose. You can chip em easy too if your not careful. I just like the brass
screw on the older ones better. They may be the reason the 28 is a little
better performer than the 28A too? One thing nice about the 28/28A is its a
radio you will listen too. Its fun to use so the work is worth it.

--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

"Nc183d" wrote in message
...
If the SX28 is rare/scarce, then is the SX23 in the "hen's teeth"
category?

I've owned three SX-23s and just got another on Ebay. I have the ability to
sniff these out because I'm part Indian :)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...d=10738801 81

--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

From: "Brian Hill" brianehill@charterDOTnet
Date: 1/11/04 10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time

The looks
of the SX-28 is what makes it desirable along with its great audio. That's
what made them popular with Military and FCC monitors was they were less
fatiguing to listen to. Its arguably the best looking boatanchor of all time
too.

Best-looking of all time? Nobody insults my National NC-2-40D without a fight!
It's even on the cover of Osterman's book on communications receivers. The
SP-600 series has to be a close contender. But unless you've got a thing for
little steering wheels as tuning knobs, the National has the Deco look down
much better than the SX-28. Even the speaker has those cool squatty Deco feet.

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

AComarow wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

The R-390, of course. Not the R-390A. The original R-390. But I'm
biased.

--
Want an abuse desk to be part of the solution? Dip it in acid.

From: (Mike Andrews)
Date: 1/12/04 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time

AComarow wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced? Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

The R-390, of course. Not the R-390A. The original R-390. But I'm
biased.

We're all biased, Mike. We just believe our individual biases are the right
ones.

And speaking of biases, I like the 390, too. Still...impressive, yes.
Functional, yes. But "best looking"?

Others?

Avery W3AVE

Yeah. Everything else around here is in some state of broken, what's 1 more?
Bring it on!

"Brian Hill" brianehill@charterDOTnet wrote in message
...

"Steven Dinius" wrote in message
...
I mean it. My S-118 Mk II is lonely.

Ok Steve. How much work do you wan't to do and how much do you wan't to
spend? Be careful what you wish for. The 28 is one radio that will make
you
feel like you've done some work. Just ask Phil Nelson. Right Phil? The A
versions a little easier. I like alining the 28s better than the 28A
because
those iron core trans/coils in the RF deck of the 28As can get stuck or be
loose. You can chip em easy too if your not careful. I just like the brass
screw on the older ones better. They may be the reason the 28 is a little
better performer than the 28A too? One thing nice about the 28/28A is its
a
radio you will listen too. Its fun to use so the work is worth it.

--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:07:24 UTC, (AComarow) wrote:

But it does raise the interesting question: what in your opinion was the
best-looking communications receiver ever produced?

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

While I have the floor, anyone remember the big 20 meter antenna
that was on the cover of QST in the mid 1960's. It was six
6-elements wide spaced on a 210 foot tower.

Is it still on the air? Are there pictures of it on the web? There
was a similar big 20 meter array in Europe. Might have been in
Norway.

de ah6gi/4

AComarow wrote:

We're all biased, Mike. We just believe our individual biases are the right
ones.

And speaking of biases, I like the 390, too. Still...impressive, yes.
Functional, yes. But "best looking"?

Others?

Avery W3AVE

SX-115!
-Bill M

"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

The NC2-40-D is a good looking set, but then again, the dreaded NC183D is a
real looker, what with the blacked out glass and that wicked S meter.

"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.

[drum roll] Now for Brian's nomination(s)...

Avery W3AVE

AComarow wrote:
"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.
^^^^^

"bogus" "_BOGUS_" You dare refer to a claim of the certain and
undeniable beauty of the original R-390 (non-"A") as "*BOGUS*"?

Aroint thee, foul fiend, and return to the depths of Hades, whence
thou camest, and wherein thou shouldst be confined "le olam, om"!

And if you can't tell I'm kidding, I'll spell it out for you.

--
"bing-bong. Brimish Rull regret that mumble maz bem dermumble a mir
mumble mumble bimble late. Passengers mizzing to mumble rimble mumble
are advised to momble mar at murmble. Thank you mor mumble mimbling
Brimble mum. bing-bong." -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes, the Monastery

From: (Nc183d)
Date: 1/13/04 5:03 AM Eastern Standard Time

The NC2-40-D is a good looking set, but then again, the dreaded NC183D is a
real looker, what with the blacked out glass and that wicked S meter.

No argument here. And how come nobody's suggested the HRO-60? Remember, we're
talking APPEARANCE, not functionality. The HROs were a pain to read frequency
off the dial, but oh, the feel of that dial...

I've got a couple of other nominations, if the jury permits:

1) RME 4300/4300A (which in a way resembles a modern NC-2-40D, or at least the
big semicircular dial does).

2) RME 6900, with a front panel laid out so the dial and every control are in
perfect harmony and proportion. Sort of a feng shui receiver.

3) For all you SX-101 lovers, who simply love that humongous dial, I vote for
most of the Eddystones of the '50s & '60s. They not only had the same huge dial
scale, but also a tuning mechanism that was beyond smoooooth and like the RME
6900, a beautifully designed front panel layout.

How come nobody's mentioned the Collins S Line? Simple, elegant, luxurious
touches like the pebbled overlay.

Fun!

Avery W3AVE

From: -Bill- exray@coquidotnet
Date: 1/12/04 9:01 PM Eastern Standard Time

SX-115!
-Bill M

I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah, nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/12/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

de ah6gi/4

With due respect, the NC-270 was just a cheaper, tarted-up NC-303. But I guess
if you like blue...

Avery W3AVE

AComarow wrote:

SX-115!
-Bill M


I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah, nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill

"AComarow" wrote in message
...
"AComarow" wrote in message

Brian's not eligible to
vote, because he's wrong. :)

Avery W3AVE
Potomac, Md.

I,m Sorry! I wanna play;(

Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.

[drum roll] Now for Brian's nomination(s)...

Avery W3AVE

Ahh!! Thank You Avery. I nominate the TMC GPR-90 because it is pretty and
The Hallicrafters SX-11 because of the airplane dial and the eye tube tuning
indicator plus the cool brass thumbscrews on the front. Ta! Da!
--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: (Mike Andrews)
Date: 1/13/04 7:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

AComarow wrote:
Oh, okay. But no more bogus R-390 claims.
^^^^^

"bogus" "_BOGUS_" You dare refer to a claim of the certain and
undeniable beauty of the original R-390 (non-"A") as "*BOGUS*"?

Aroint thee, foul fiend, and return to the depths of Hades, whence
thou camest, and wherein thou shouldst be confined "le olam, om"!

And if you can't tell I'm kidding, I'll spell it out for you.

--
"bing-bong. Brimish Rull regret that mumble maz bem dermumble a mir
mumble mumble bimble late. Passengers mizzing to mumble rimble mumble
are advised to momble mar at murmble. Thank you mor mumble mimbling
Brimble mum. bing-bong." -- Gary "Wolf" Barnes, the Monastery

Okay, okay. Nobody ever said 390 junkies are rational. Look, I owned one. I was
dazzled by the Rube Goldberg machinery behind the front panel. All those gears!
Cams! Moving arms! But since when did defense contractors build for show as
opposed to efficiency and functionality? C'mon. Name one military radio that
looked better than its civilian equivalent. At least the SP-600 didn't look
that much different.

Avery W3AVE

"AComarow" wrote in message No argument here. And how
come nobody's suggested the HRO-60? Remember, we're
talking APPEARANCE, not functionality. The HROs were a pain to read
frequency
off the dial, but oh, the feel of that dial...


I agree HROs are very cool looking. I like all those 1930s rigs.

--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

From: -Bill- exray@coquidotnet
Date: 1/13/04 7:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

AComarow wrote:

SX-115!
-Bill M


I understand the appeal, but it's always left me cold. Arrogant. ("Why am I
so
much more expensive than other ham receivers? Because I CAN be! Nyah,
nyah.")

Avery W3AVE

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill

Give you $150 for it.

Avery

AComarow wrote:


I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill


Give you $150 for it.

Avery


I know you will!
-Bill

I got mine for $100 in the eighties so I try not to let current prices
bother me :-)

-Bill


Give you $150 for it.

Avery

All right, I'll give you $160. Grumble.


I know you will!
-Bill

Ahh!! Thank You Avery. I nominate the TMC GPR-90 because it is pretty and
The Hallicrafters SX-11 because of the airplane dial and the eye tube tuning
indicator plus the cool brass thumbscrews on the front. Ta! Da!
--
73 and good DXing
RX:
R-5000, SP-600 JX-6, SX-28
Ant:
100' longwire, Evesdropper Dipole

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE

Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:47:50 UTC, (AComarow) wrote:

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/12/04 8:36 PM Eastern Standard Time

I don't like the peep-hole windows like Hammarlund used. A radio
should have a BIG scale and big knobs.

NC-270
SX-62

The metaphore scales are confusing too, HRO, Collins. It's too much
like looking at a movie through a soda straw. Don't get me started
on digital displays. What's that, a bunch of numbers. It doesn't
show me where the station is in the context of the band.

SX-101A, now there is how 40 meters should be splayed out.

de ah6gi/4

With due respect, the NC-270 was just a cheaper, tarted-up NC-303. But I guess
if you like blue...

Avery W3AVE

No, the 303 didn't have all the bands in front of you the way the
NC-270 did.

I have a theory about these radios. I have a pal who is a "spec"
reader. You know the type. He doesn't have a good feel for
"real-world" phenomenum but he can memorize numbers and parameters.

A lot of radio guys are "spec" readers, 3rd order intercept,
fractional microvolt sensitivity, the more esoteric, the better they
like it.

The real world ain't a bunch of specs. It's how you use the tool,
not the size in mm.

The NC-270 had a nice look, a unique color scheme, that flywheel on
the tuning knob, and decent enough electronics.

I really appreciate BIG slide rule scales and smooth tuning knobs
with some heft to them.

I'm not saying that the '303 wasn't a great radio. It was.

I simply appreciate a radio with the scales in front of you. My
old SX-101A was a nice radio. It gives you a better feel for the
band layout than, say, an S-Line, HRO, or one of the new digital
boxes.

I like maps because I can see that "this" is close to "that". You
don't get that sense from a digital radio.

Anyway, these are all interesting and fun.

de ah6gi/4

"John Moriarity" wrote in message ...
Two good nominees, IMHO. But if the GPR-90 (which I like, too) is a
candidate,
why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers (HQ-145, -170,
and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

If you've ever seen a GPR-90 in person, you wouldn't
have to ask. It is MIL-SPEC in construction, the
Hammarlunds are *definitely* not (although I do like
some of them, mainly the ones without the cheap
clock).

I, too, vote for the GPR-90, and any HRO other than
the HRO-7 (it, too, looked cheap!).

73, John - K6QQ

I owned a GPR-90 for several years and agree about the build
quality--but we're talking esthetics in this thread, so you're not
allowed to bring up unimportant side issues like quality of
construction, performance, reliability... ;)

So just on appearance/esthetics/ergonomics (what really counts,
right?), I have to say again that the basic look and feel of this
radio is interestingly similar to that of the better Hammarlunds.

Avery W3AVE

"AComarow" wrote in message


why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers
(HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE



I like them but why do they all have to look the same.

I like the Collins75A-1 and 51J and the Racal RA71. Heck! I like everything.
But what is the UGLIEST RADIO EVER?

Brian

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: "Brian Hill" brianehill@charterDOTnet
Date: 1/14/04 8:46 AM Eastern Standard Time


"AComarow" wrote in message


why not Hammarlund's more modern HQ-1XX series of receivers
(HQ-145, -170, and
-180)? The layout is pretty similar.

Avery W3AVE

I like them but why do they all have to look the same.

The only possible answer is that God intended all radios to look like that.
Either that or somewhere deep in the bowels of the engineering department, at
midnight Sunday with no engineers around, that design brutally eliminated the
competition, leaving no evidence but a few whiskers of pot metal and the
pungent aroma of burned insulation....

Avery W3AVE

Subject: SX-28 Scarce? I Don't Think so!!
From: NoSpam
Date: 1/14/04 5:07 AM Eastern Standard Time

A lot of radio guys are "spec" readers, 3rd order intercept,
fractional microvolt sensitivity, the more esoteric, the better they
like it.

The real world ain't a bunch of specs. It's how you use the tool,
not the size in mm.

The NC-270 had a nice look, a unique color scheme, that flywheel on
the tuning knob, and decent enough electronics.

I really appreciate BIG slide rule scales and smooth tuning knobs
with some heft to them.

I'm not saying that the '303 wasn't a great radio. It was.

I simply appreciate a radio with the scales in front of you. My
old SX-101A was a nice radio. It gives you a better feel for the
band layout than, say, an S-Line, HRO, or one of the new digital
boxes.

I like maps because I can see that "this" is close to "that". You
don't get that sense from a digital radio.

Anyway, these are all interesting and fun.

de ah6gi/4

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. I'd also agree with you and your
friend regarding the "how you use the tool" case to be made for a radio that is
easy and intuitive to use. I think that accounts for much of the popularity of
Grundig's Satellit 800, a 15-pound "portable" that is remarkably
straightforward to play with--nice big display (digital, yes, but that makes
sense for shortwave), nice big knobs, one function per control. Good overall
performance, too.

Avery W3AVE