8 May
2001
8 May
'01
9:22 a.m.
Reproductions should be clearly labelled as such. The guy selling the
Mark-8 clone attempts to make the case that if you make the PCBs by hand
(as you would have in 1974), and you buy parts that were available to buy
back in 1974 (w/ 1974 date codes) and you assemble it according to the
directions in the article, then building it "today" is just as legit as if
it has been built in 1974.
I can see the argument and its one used on the Concourse (classic car)
circuit a lot. If the car has all original parts (even if they came from 6
different cars) then its an "original" as opposed to "it came out of the
factory like this." The Mark-8 is a particularly unique example in that
there was no 'factory.'
I'm on the Concourse side in VAX land, if it was a DEC supported
configuration then I consider it "classic" even if the system didn't arrive
that way. Sometimes I've backed out things DEC _didn't_ support but the
customer did.
--Chuck
At 05:02 PM 5/8/2001 -0400, Jeff wrote:
An endless
supply of "vintage" anything really doesn't make it vintage
any longer.
My thoughts on that particular item is that he should've been up
front about it's origin instead of hiding behind vagueness. Reproduction
parts have their place but they should be clearly identified as such when
buying/selling them.