Vintageness

Iggy, You are in a rare and enviable position, if you really don't care whether what you get is the original or a copy. To you, if I interpret what you say correctly, - A CD and Walkman is better than a night at the symphony (cheaper, can be replayed at will). - Safeway (a chain of grocery stores in the US) generic root beer is better than A&W (cheaper, still floats ice cream) - A Saturn (car) is better than a BMW M3. (cheaper, more dealers, still gets up to the speed limit) - A print of the Mona Lisa is as good as the original (and can be rolled up and stuffed in a tube for transportation or mailing). - This year's repro Mark-8 is as good as a 1970's one (and more reliable). - Corner liquor-store champagne is as good as Dom Perignon (still bubbles, you still get tipsy when you drink enough). This is wonderful for you because you can afford all the ersatz experiences a *lot* more easily than I could afford all the originals. It's also slightly good for me, because it means you won't be competing with me if I should ever have a chance to buy the Mona Lisa (or a BMW, ...). I *know* there are differences between the originals and the copies, in all of the cases I listed above. In three out of six, I am well enough equipped to appreciate them, and I would *really* want to see/use the original at least once, even if budgetary constraints forced me to live with the copy long-term. (ie: go to the symphony and then buy the CD, hoping it would help me remember some of what the symphony was like). In the other three cases, I don't appreciate all of the differences. But because they *are* copies, I *know* they are there, and if I ever become better educated, I may regret owning a copy when I learn what they are - or I may forever miss out on some subtle beauty of the original, because I settled for a copy. Suppose I never drove a BMW - a Saturn always got me where I was going. I could easily sneer at people who "wasted their money on BMW's", out of ignorance. The fact that I really wouldn't be able to tell the difference as I was learning to drive doesn't mean I'd never be able to tell. The same applies to research on the history of the creation of the original. Maybe the PC board was laid out a certain way to facilitate test during assembly, or because the designer knew his PC etching technique wouldn't support two vias too close together. If Speedy Circuits can now put 10 vias in the same space, and the "copy" is laid out to take advantage of that, some history is lost, whether original 1970's parts are used or not - and if I am researching the copy, I'll never notice it. And I don't buy the argument that any copy will ever be the true equal of the original - it may be pretty close, *in the characteristics that the copiers care about*, but it won't be the same. Finally, and this may be the point that you and Sellam are most at odds about, there is a component of emotional state that is important to any experience. If you are able to put yourself into the same emotional state before and during viewing a copy of the Mona Lisa as you would be viewing the actual Mona Lisa - good for you. It'll save you the price of admission to the Louvre (or where-ever the Mona Lisa is). I can't. I think, based on his arguments, Sellam can't (correct me if I'm wrong here, Sellam). To us, the knowledge of what we are looking at is a critical part of experiencing it. It's worth something (though it may not be worth the cost of buying the thing, either), and it means we do not regard people who value originalty (and pay a lot for the originals) as "idiots" - we share some of their values. It doesn't mean we won't use copies either. I've never seen the real Mona Lisa, but the copies I've seen are good, and I've enjoyed them. But I want to see the real one, someday. - Mark