Tony Duell wrote:
I don't
really understand why people care about originality. Isn't that mainly
a metaphysical matter? Or am I being too post-modern?
It depends on what you mean by 'originality'.
Suppose you took the PDP8/e CPU and built an exact copy using modern TTL
chips, etc (I'll neglect for the moment that Compaq's lawyers would
probably object to this :-)). To me, that would be as useful, and as
interesting as the oriignal PDP8/e that's on my desk. I could get the
tech manuals off the shelf, clip the logicdart onto various IC pins, run
programs, and see what happened.
Interesting, but would you pay the same $$$ as you would a circa 1968 unit?
A remake is a remake. Coins have done several things similar. But a die that is
cut in te 1990s for a similar coin as a 1930s half dollar is NOT that same as
the actual 1930s coin.
Vintage implies "made then, not now", even if we could make the exact replica
now its not the same as the one made then.
Now, suppose you built a PDP8/e compatible CPU in an FPGA. That's a
perfectly reasonable thing to do, but to me it would not be as 'useful'
or 'interesting' as the real PDP8/e or a chipwise clone of it. I couldn't
do the sort of things that I wanted to do to it. Other people -- those
that are primarily software hackers, presumably could use a
PDP8/e-in-an-FPGA instead of the real PDP8/e.
Really, asd long as the reproduction is identical
in every sense, why would it
matter when it was built? I wouldn't really mind replacing my 1992 Amiga 4000
with a freshly built replica. As long as it looked and behaved like my current
A4000, but didn't consist of eight-year-old hardware, the new model would be
superior.
Why? Old chips (meaning those made in the last 30 years or so) seem to be
pretty reliable most of the time...
That's not the point either. Its about what 'circa' means. This concept seems
so
easy for me being both as coin and a sports card collector. Topps makes many
an old remake of cards. But there IS a difference, and nobody would NEVER
confuse an original with a remake. Computers are no different. Does that mean
that a 1999 manufactured PDP-11 wouldn't have value? Of course not! But no one
should even consider that a 1970s made PDP-11 should ever be confused with
a 1990s replica. Its the nature of collecting.
Likewise, why would it matter whether your issue
of X-men was printed in 1996
instead of 1963? Is it the actual reading material or 30-year old paper you're
looking for?
True, which is why I spend far too much money on Lindsay Publications
reprints of old books on radio, electical stuff, engineering, etc. The
_information_ is what matters to me.
But issue counts (mintage) do matter. You guys are blowing smoke if you think that
a replica could equal in stature (forget value, as that really is not the point) an
original.
But, I would not be happy paying a high price for a 'rare book' and then
finding out it was a Lindsay reprint that is still 'in print'. Because I
have then not got what I paid for.
Okay, looks like some progress here.
OTOH, packaging is important to me, and so is the
condition of the equipment I
get. I find aesthetic pleasure in the design of the computer and its
I get my 'aesthetic pleasure' at a somewhat lower level :-). Looking at
the _beautiful_ electronic designs in some of these old machines. And to
do that doesn't depend on a perfect case.
Again, obviously I want the machine to be complete enough to work. And it
helps if there are no big holes in the case, or cracks in the plastic,
and so on. But I wouldn't automatically ignore a machine because it looks
well-worn.
Condition IS important. And that is another inherent if not decepitive perk for
a replica. Its newer therefore in better condition. Better condition implies worth
more. But is that the same for replicas? A worn replica would never have any
extra value. But a worn original actually might. Never should a replica be passed
off as an original.
Eric
-tony