26 May
2013
26 May
'13
2:19 p.m.
On Sun, 26 May 2013, Tony Duell wrote:
Exactly. That's the part that is bothering me. The guy who bought it from
Fred Hatfield paid $40,000 just a few months earlier and purposefully did
not tell Mr. Hatfield what he planned to turn around and auction it for.
To me, this is just plain wrong.
IMO the ethical thing to have done would have been to arrange to auction
it for Mr. Hatfield and take a percentage of the final sales amount as a
broker's fee. This would have put much of the proceeds into Mr. Hatfield's
pockets instead of this unnamed "middleman".
The $671,400 sales amount includes a buyer's premium, other fees (possibly
a currency conversion fee), and taxes.
Vintage
Apple-1 Sells for Record $671,400
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/vintage-apple-1-sells-for-record-6…
Whoever bought the thing from Mr. Hatfield earlier this year really should
be ashamed of himself. I for one hope someone out there could at least
send Mr. Hatfield one of the Apple I replicas.
Do I understand from this that this particular Apple 1 was bought a few
months back and has now been re-sold at a profit?
This sort othing saddens me. Old computers should be got working,
powered up, and programmed. Not regardaed as investments. FWIW, I have
several machines each considerably rarer than the Apple 1 and I run them
from time to time. It's what they are for!