10 May
2001
10 May
'01
12:31 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
> On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jeff Hellige wrote:
> > No, I don't feel that they are. I would still call them
> > reproductions. The time-frame has as much to do with it as any other
> > aspect. Your part might be perfect in every detail, but it wasn't
> > manufactured in the same time period as the original. Plus in the
> > example stated above, it isn't even the same manufacturer. Is a
> > Mark-8, assmembled from era-parts 30 years after the builder's
> > article still an original Mark-8?
>
> Hmmm... As long as they're useful, does the aforementioned matter?
To me : No and yes :-)
No, in that it is still as hackable as an
'original'. I could enjoy it
just as much
Yes, in that it would be worth less if I ever had to
resell it, and
presumably it could be 'more common' than an original. So I'd expect to
pay less for it, and would feel cheated if I paid for an original and got
a reproduction.
But that is only because others invest a particular value in it. Granted, if I
find a book which I'd like to read, I would expect to pay more if it was the
first edition as opposed to a reprint. OTOH, the reaosn I expect that is
because I know that some people find particular (intangible) value in the
first edition, value which I myself wouldn't recognise. But then again, I
don't set the prices. The reason for which I'd expect to pay more would be the
price tag, not the perceived value. Given a choice between a new edition and
an old, I'd choose whicever would be in better connection and/or cheaper.
IOW, in a perfect world, there would be no need to state whether it's a
reprint or an original edition, because they would be equal. Agreed, stating
that a replica is the original is dishonest, but the question is why we even
bother.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.