<rolls eyes back> I don't think that I
claimed that it wasn't. My point was
that it often has a downside when it comes to getting items to people who
are best capable of preserving them for future generations.
I assume this is the recurring "deep pocket collectors are not the
best caretakers" issue.
What evidence do you have?
I am not sure there's any correleation at all between deepness of pockets
and ability/desire to look after an artefact...
Certainly if you've bought something as an investment (which I suspect
applies to a lot of antiques, alas), you are going to want to make sure
your investment doesn't lose value, Conversely, thoug, if you've bought a
reare machien for 'only' a few hundred dollars, you may not look after it
as well if you earn that sort of money for an hours work ('Hey, I could
byy another hundred of them easily) than if you earn that amount of money
in a month. Of course you can't buy another hundred of them, for the
simple reason thast there aren't another hundred around on sale
My big worry is that preserving classic computers can be very different
from preserving other artefacts, and that at least over
here the people
with the deepest pockets tend not to be scientists or engineers who
would
know how to do that.
-tony