eBay madness strikes again
 

Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 03:42:08 GMT, Fred
wrote:

Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused


Why does a dog lick its balls?

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused

This was an expensive radio when new. Probably about $300. According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator at:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

That $300 1957 cost is like $1977 today. That certainly doesn't mean the
radio is really worth almost 2 grand, but it does indicate that owning a
nice SX-100 is less of a sacrifice than it was 47 years ago.

I have no doubt the high bidder bought the radio to show it off. Doing
a really nice fixup on a radio can take hours and hours of labor. And
it may never look quite original to a sharp observer.

I wouldn't pay that much. But I like to fix up old radios, and I can
sure understand somebody paying extra for a nice one, instead of trying
to make a nice one out of a cheap one.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused

This was an expensive radio when new. Probably about $300. According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator at:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

That $300 1957 cost is like $1977 today. That certainly doesn't mean the
radio is really worth almost 2 grand, but it does indicate that owning a
nice SX-100 is less of a sacrifice than it was 47 years ago.

I have no doubt the high bidder bought the radio to show it off. Doing
a really nice fixup on a radio can take hours and hours of labor. And
it may never look quite original to a sharp observer.

I wouldn't pay that much. But I like to fix up old radios, and I can
sure understand somebody paying extra for a nice one, instead of trying
to make a nice one out of a cheap one.

Frank Dresser


I can relate to this. My first SW capable radio was a 1937 Zenith -
a console with "Magic Eye", all band reception, etc. I wouldn't mind
one bit having that radio back today if I could get it back with a
complete cap job, all new tubes, realignment, etc. Regardless of
antenna, it couldn't match a modern high-end
SW reciever, but it would still be fun - the thing reeked of the
"romance" of SW listening back at that time in history.

Tony


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Tony Meloche" wrote in message
...


Frank Dresser wrote:

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are
pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused

This was an expensive radio when new. Probably about $300.
According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator at:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

That $300 1957 cost is like $1977 today. That certainly doesn't mean
the
radio is really worth almost 2 grand, but it does indicate that
owning a
nice SX-100 is less of a sacrifice than it was 47 years ago.

I have no doubt the high bidder bought the radio to show it off.
Doing
a really nice fixup on a radio can take hours and hours of labor.
And
it may never look quite original to a sharp observer.

I wouldn't pay that much. But I like to fix up old radios, and I
can
sure understand somebody paying extra for a nice one, instead of
trying
to make a nice one out of a cheap one.

Frank Dresser


I can relate to this. My first SW capable radio was a 1937
Zenith -
a console with "Magic Eye", all band reception, etc. I wouldn't mind
one bit having that radio back today if I could get it back with a
complete cap job, all new tubes, realignment, etc. Regardless of
antenna, it couldn't match a modern high-end
SW reciever, but it would still be fun - the thing reeked of the
"romance" of SW listening back at that time in history.

Tony


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
Encryption =---

"Tony Meloche" wrote in message
...




I can relate to this. My first SW capable radio was a 1937
Zenith -
a console with "Magic Eye", all band reception, etc. I wouldn't mind
one bit having that radio back today if I could get it back with a
complete cap job, all new tubes, realignment, etc. Regardless of
antenna, it couldn't match a modern high-end
SW reciever, but it would still be fun - the thing reeked of the
"romance" of SW listening back at that time in history.

Tony


Yeah, getting the things we wanted but couldn't afford as kids is a big
part of collecting. Not so much in my case, though. The only radio I
got because I wanted it as a kid was a Drake SW-4A. It worked pretty
good when I got it. Oh, well.

Frank Dresser

a lot of people have more money than sense

Fred wrote:
Yes, it is a nice looking Hallicrafters SX-100, but these are pretty
common. Why are people paying this much for a very common radion.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 73


Confused

Tony Meloche wrote in
:

Regardless of
antenna, it couldn't match a modern high-end
SW reciever, but it would still be fun - the thing reeked of the
"romance" of SW listening back at that time in history.


The fact is that the programming that made the radio "romantic" is also
gone.

Anything can pick up Rush Limbaugh, ESPN Radio, and the lunatic fringe on
SW, but there is very little romance in it, no matter what radio you use.

There was a structure to radio programming back then that is gone now, and
even an A****er Kent can't receive that any more.

There was a structure to radio programming back then that is gone now, and
even an A****er Kent can't receive that any more.

(Sigh...) So true. What made it romantic back then we
* Except for wire-press reports in newspapers and for Movietone News, radio was
the only way to get news.
* Radio then required one to use one's imagination. In fact, stuff was written
so certain vivid pictures would come to mind. Nowadays, the pictures are
provided.

I think that kind of radio is returning. Despite the stuff on US SW stations,
it is more of a personal nature than network stuff. There are some good retro
music and story shows on SW, too. (I need to write down the skeds of those.)

Too, microbroadcasting is growing up. I heard yesterday about Austin, Texas,
microbroadcasters linking their stations to provide broad coverage on the east
and west sides of town. That was kind of what I had in mind for my area, except
I thought of placing low powered translators on properties of willing owners.
Of course maintaining the same frequency would probably be impossible, unless
two transmitters were used at each translator, one for broadcast and one for a
link to another translator.

73,
Bill, K5BY

= = = donutbandit
= = = wrote in message ...
Tony Meloche wrote in
:

Regardless of
antenna, it couldn't match a modern high-end
SW reciever, but it would still be fun - the thing reeked of the
"romance" of SW listening back at that time in history.


The fact is that the programming that made the radio "romantic" is also
gone.

Anything can pick up Rush Limbaugh, ESPN Radio, and the lunatic fringe on
SW, but there is very little romance in it, no matter what radio you use.

There was a structure to radio programming back then that is gone now, and
even an A****er Kent can't receive that any more.

DB,

This is why, I have always thought that the 50KW Clear Channel
Stations should be required as part of their license; to have
'original' "Local Content" Programming for broadcast from
6AM to 12AM/Midnight. This would create a revived diversity in
the AM Broadcasting Industry. The lesser powered 10KW and 5KW
stations could all run the "Me-Too" National Talk, News and
Sports Programming to fill their local markets.

Then DXing the Clear Channels would be something to Listen To
Daily and Nightly; not simply something to Log and forget.

~ RHF

..