27 May
2013
27 May
'13
10:44 a.m.
On 2013 May 27, at 8:56 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
It's just the way I (and some others, if the
private mail is any
indication) was brought up. There is an amount of profit that's
considered
"honorable", beyond which it becomes shady. It's a matter of
opinion. *I*
think he screwed the old guy by taking advantage of his lesser
knowledge.
Feel free to disagree; I respect your opinion, but that is my
position.
I still haven't seen it in any way established that Hatfield had
'lesser knowledge'.
What information is out there suggests the contrary.
Here's another article extract:
".. a nonworking Apple-1 failed to attract its reserve price of
just over $75,000 at an auction *last year* in London."
(em. mine)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/technology/apple-1-computers-jump-
in-value-at-auctions.html?_r=0)
The unit was purchased from Hatfield in non-working condition.
Hatfield settled for a sure thing, the middleman did the work and
took a gamble.
And we still don't know when the 40K$ transaction took place, as I
have pointed out already at least one article suggests it took place
two/three years ago.