On Sun, 26 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: It just means that if you have any of the earliest most common machines, you now have an opportunity to sacrifice them to fund the entire rest of your collection. An Altair or Apple1 can now fund dozens of Proctology, Compupro, Cromemco, etc. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

On 5/26/2013 12:26 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: 13,000 euros so, almost $17k usd

Saturday in Germany. Breker Auction apparently charges about 23.4% for commissions and taxes. With that taken into account the final total was: Apple 1 - $671,000 Lisa-1 with Twiggy drives - $54,000 Apple II (#A2s1-38650) - $7,000 MITS Altair 8800 (#221443K) - $11,000 Scelbi-8H ($20,500) More interesting than the Apple I IMO is the SCELBI-8H listed on the

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Tony Duell wrote: [What was special about that machine? An Apple ][ is normally worth about $7 (OK, I exagerate, but only a little :-))] *Processed by LiterateBot(tm)*

ROFLMAO!! On 05/27/2013 08:50 PM, geneb wrote: -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

Processed by TRASH BOT.

On 26 May 2013 19:02, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: :?D That's a good way to look at it. Except - and I am almost scared to ask - what the hell's a Proctology device and why would I want dozens of them? -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 27 May 2013 02:54, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: You don't know who/what Processor Technology was? That's it kid, turn in your nerd card. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: Oh right. I keep forgetting you come from a computationally disadvantaged country. :D Same here! My first computer was a VIC-20. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: Ahh yes, the ZX-81. When just any door stop won't do. :) I suspect that if it wasn't for the combined jackassery of Irving Gould and the rest of Commodore upper management, it would be currently generating the kinds of reality distortion fields that Steve Jobs would crawl out of his grave to get at. No clue. (I've been *accused* of having clues one time or another, but this is not one of those times.) At a guess, x86 maybe? g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On 3 June 2013 21:06, Ian King <IanK at vulcan.com> wrote: [Chuckle] Well played. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 5/27/13 11:37 AM, Toby Thain wrote: When I went to see the Colossus at BP, there was a very knowledgeable person there to answer questions. I asked a lot, and eventually prefixed a question with: "Well, I'm an American and.." before I got my question out he fired back "I'm sorry to hear that." Gotta love it. -Ryan

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Brent Hilpert wrote: Oh for christ's sake, it was a fscking joke. Apparently the only person that got it was Liam. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Fred Cisin wrote: *hangs head in shame* g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

There's a purely selfish reason, I guess. If machines are selling for very high prices then I'll not be able to afford to buy them. Oh well.. But there's another reason. There seems to be no correlation between technical ability and wealth (if there is a correlation, it's small and negative, in that highly-paid jobs tend not to be electronics/computer related). Which means, alas, that some old computers, the Apple 1 being a prime example, are not so likely to be owned by people who can restore them, care for them, and run them. And that is a pity. These machines should not be kept in a safe, regarded as an investment, They should be run. -tony

More bullshit. You have provided no evidence that people who are wealthy don't care about the things they buy, nor that they have no skills to restore them (do you have *any* idea how many silicon valley millionaires there are?), or will not run them. The sentiment expressed here is simple wealth envy and nothing more. Paul Allen is pretty damned wealthy and he has *all* of the qualities you assert that he does not, simply because he is wealthy. Furthermore, people who are wealthy have the amazingly odd idea that they could *hire* people to do restorations for them and keep their machines in working order. Without this sort of person, we wouldn't have a Living Computer Museum in Seattle and I'm willing to also bet we wouldn't have a Computer History Museum in Silicon Valley. So says you. I don't see you making a kickstarter project or doing a fund-raising drive to purchase these machines to put them to the purpose *you* claim is best for them. If you don't like what someone else is doing with a machine, buy it from them and do what you think should be done. Until then, please, just shut up because it's not your right to tell other people what to do with their property. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

Does that $40K house have a decent workshop? 3 phase power? some climate controlled storage buildings? a kitchen and at least one bedroom would be nice, also.

On 26/05/13 11:54 PM, mc68010 wrote: Last house price I saw quoted in the USA was $12,000 (Cleveland...) --T

On Mon, 27 May 2013, mc68010 wrote: Well, Cleveland IS near the river that has caught fire 13 times since 1868... -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On 5/27/2013 12:10 AM, Toby Thain wrote: Real estate ain't my thing but, the median home price in the US is over $200k. Even in the south its over $150k. What you might get for $40k may not be something anyone can actually live in, or want to, without a whole lot more money being spent on it. Was the listing in Detroit by chance ?

On 05/27/2013 04:37 AM, mc68010 wrote: I don't know where that median price came from, but I find it suspicious. I just left a very nice area a few miles from some the country's most beautiful beaches, full of houses in the 20K-60K range that are only just now beginning to sell. I moved to a similarly nice (but slightly more depressed) area where nice, biggish houses can be had all day long for $70K. The ones you can get for $20K are typically in need of lots of work, having been abandoned due to either foreclosure or impending foreclosure. But there are AN AWFUL LOT of those, and with labor prices being in the toilet, putting $5K-$10K into a $20K house can often get you a really, really nice place in a good area. $200K houses. Ha! Yes, I can find some, if I look hard enough...stuck in between the $50K "fixer-uppers" which are now the norm, thanks to "capitalism". -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 05/27/2013 01:37 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote: Yes. Now, granted, while SOME of those houses were the oft-cited situation of "$1000 down payment, move right in!" stupidity. Those loans were guaranteed to be foreclosures before they even got off the ground. But not all of them were. Not even "many" of them. Autumn and I assisted in 11 (yes nine) house moves in 2010, before we left FL. Eight of them were foreclosures, and NONE were those type of loans. Every one of those loans was taken by hard-working, educated, professional people who put Serious Money down. But this is WAY off-topic, even for me. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

Octal.

On 05/27/2013 06:29 PM, geneb wrote: Ohhhhh man. You really just went there. I do love this list. Even with schmucks like Richard around. (and it wouldn't be the same without his oh-so-dependable predictability!) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 27/05/13 2:02 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: Octal. aaaaaaaand we're tenuously back on topic... --T

While I realize my address now inhabits most kill files these days, I feel compelled nonetheless to offer this: I don't feel it is wealth envy as much as how the more wealthy participants of our beloved hobby are warping the playing field (albeit unintentionally). It's changeing the character of our hobby, and a few of us find this distressing. There's little we can do about this; hence the sense of angst. Just my $0.02 N0body ____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: I don't know about Tony, but if I somehow ended up owning an original Apple I, I'd be inclined to sell it and use the proceeds to buy a replica and put the rest in trust to fund other vintage computer gear. The high selling price of these Apple I boards is still a bubble and there are only so many people out there who can (and will) spend crazy money on them. The media (and potential sellers/auction houses) love to hype that there aren't many of these left, but there are probably quite a few still hiding in closets/attics/basements waiting to be unearthed (and hopefully not thrown in the trash when someone clears out an estate).

I definitely concur, I would sell also, were I to posses an Apple I. The machine holds little interest for me (of course, this doesn't mean it's not interesting to someone else). But you've touched on the one aspect of the hobby that still has a (sort of) level playing field: Finds out in the wild. Being in the right place in the right time. Although, the internet and that auction site which must not be named is changing this by increasing public awareness to those outside the hobby. That blade definitely cuts both ways... N0body ____________________________________________________________ FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

On Sun, 26 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: You missed my point. My point was how this (currently unnamed) middleman took advantage of Mr. Hatfield and paid him only $40,000 for the Apple I while not telling him what he expected to turn around and immediately auction it for. Mr. Hatfield certainly took the news better than most people would have (at least in his public statements), but that still doesn't make what that "middleman" did right or ethical.

In article <alpine.DEB.2.00.1305261620100.21733 at brioche.invalid.domain>, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> writes: Bullshit. Mr. Hatfield was not taken advantage of. He entered into the transaction willingly and was not coerced in any manner. Using your logic above, I am "taken advantage of" every time I buy something because the other person made a profit from the transaction. This is bullshit. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Sun, 27 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: I wouldn't gave a problem with that profit if it went to back to the community. Yup. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On 05/26/2013 09:27 PM, Richard wrote: Who the hell appointed YOU to make the judgment call that "if it's capitalism, anything goes!"? -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

What I haven't seen addressed in this discussion is just what was the known market value(s) of an Apple I at the time of the 40K$ transaction? News articles seem to present contradictory info, that the 40K$ purchase from Hatfield was a few months ago, to it being a couple of years ago. While a collaborative approach to the sale - splitting proceeds - might have been more profitable to him, Hatfield sounds like he has his wits about him, he could have checked, or known, 'what it was worth'. Without more info it seems difficult to suggest he was 'taken advantage of'.

On 27/05/2013 07:59, Tothwolf wrote: Reminds me of the north/south divide in the UK. In the south folks read the papers and see a house across the street is for sale for mega bucks. They say well ours is much nicer so it must be worth double mega bucks. In the North they say what idiot would pay that amount for a house like that..... Dave G4UGM

On Sun, 26 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: I can't see Mr. Hatfield willfully agreeing to sell the Apple I in question for only $40,000 if he had known in advance that it had the potential to sell for more than $600,000, working or not. [And for the record, the above reply from Richard makes is very glad I plonked him some time back since he apparently still thinks I'm going to somehow be reading his personal attacks. Richard, grow up.]

On 27 May 2013 16:33, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: This is not some "new definition of capitalism". Hadfield made /forty thousand dollars/ for an old, dead computer that he paid under $700 for. He made SIXTY TIMES what he paid for it. There is *no* possible definition of being "bilked" for this. That is like a decent lottery win or something. Look, last year, I sold a UK101 that I got off my local Freecycle group for just over ?200. I sold it as dead, sight-unseen, because I didn't know, don't have the skills to fix it and don't want to learn them. I was /very/ pleased with the price. I was and remain absolutely delighted. The guy that bought it - and I delivered it, carried it in a snowboard bag, complete with CRT monitor, right the way across London, well over an hour on the train, at my own cost - was also delighted. He told me, straight out, that he planned to repair it and get it working and if he did so it would sell for at least 50% more - he suggested ?350+ as a fair price for a working one. Mine had manual, receipt, demo cassette and original monitor as well, so probably rather more. I didn't want to fix it. I didn't even try it, in case I did damage. I never even plugged it in. He may, for all I know, have fixed it and sold it. If he got twice as much, good, go him. If he got 10? as much, I'd be /very/ surprised. This Apple 1 went for well over twice what the last Apple 1 went for, and that went for nearly twice what the previous one went for. This cannot continue. But /nobody was bilked./ Nobody has been robbed. Both parties got a /very very good price./ Hadfield made a bigger profit as a factor of buying price than the reseller. Where is your problem? Lay it out, describe it, because I have not seen /anyone/ in this thread /justify/ their argument. /Why/ should the buyer/reseller have made less profit? Why should he have shared the profit? He laid out FORTY K for a dead piece of 35y old electronics. That is /generous./ Why should he have offered to split the money? In what universe would doing so be rational or sane? -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 27 May 2013 16:56, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: So go on then. Explain why it's OK for Hadfield to make 60? profit on his Apple 1, but not OK for someone else to make about 12? profit. When does this magical cutoff point appear? Quantify it. Lay it out. No hand-waving "it's just not right". Illustrate it with examples. I am not the enemy here. I despise what the bankers are doing; I hate the rampant profiteering that is vastly increasing the gap between rich & poor. But the old guy made a profit of ?39,300+ for keeping a computer for 30y. That is pretty awesomely good. I see no rip-off here. I see no profiteering. Guy buys dead computer, fixes it, does it up, sells it for a profit. A big profit, sure. But he buys a dead old computer for, as established, /the price of a goddam house./ He gives the old guy a good salary for a whole year. So explain to me how paying enough money that, if I received it, I would go on a round the world trip for about 2 years - explain to me how that is ripping someone off. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 05/27/2013 12:25 PM, Liam Proven wrote: Perhaps a way to quantify it is this: Any deal that has you tiptoeing away giggling quietly about how much money you're "gonna make off that guy" is probably over the line. But again, it's an opinion, just like yours, only different. Richard's, on the other hand, is "it's capitalism!" ...which, again, is the phrase that suited men use every day to magically absolve themselves of any guilt that they may have felt over screwing someone over. The Enron mess, for example, was just capitalism. Making the maximum amount of money regardless of who gets screwed. I have no problem with capitalism. I do a great deal of business, and I don't lift a finger unless I'm going to make a good-sized pile of money. But I do it in such a way that I can look at myself in the mirror at the end of the day. If a deal doesn't pass that simple test, it's "over the line". -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 05/27/2013 01:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote: Had the seller in fact researched it? His quote indicated that he had no idea it was worth more than the $40K that he received. He clearly didn't do his research, and because of that, he was ignorant of the facts, which was his mistake. *Why* do you keep asking me this question? Taking advantage of someone's ignorance is wrong. At least that's how I was raised. If you weren't, that's ok. It's clear that not everyone feels this way, as entire big-money industries are built around doing it. (Windows, audiophiles..) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 27/05/13 1:22 PM, Liam Proven wrote: Rather than this particular transaction, I suspect Dave was more concerned about, as I am, the reflexive posture - which rears occasionally on this list - that "anything goes" under the mantle of "capitalism". His reply makes that very clear, doesn't it? --T

On 27 May 2013 20:10, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote: I got that people think it's unfair. I also share the feeling that unrestricted anything-goes laissez-faire capitalism is a bad thing. But making ?40K seems pretty good to me. So it sold for way more than Apple 1s generally do. Big deal. The reseller did not /know/ that it would. He could have got double his money, meaning he made back his whole investment over - pay $40K, sell for ~$80K, make $40K. If he was lucky, he might fairly have thought, it might have gone for twice that, maybe 4? that. Actually, it went for 10? that. He got lucky. It just appears that for some people, you're allowed to make /some/ money but not /lots/ of money - with no clearly-defined line between "some" and "lots", but you cross this undefined, invisible line, then you're suddenly a scum-sucking maggot. That seems irrational to me. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: Scarcity along with supply and demand is why Hadfield could make 60? profit. I highly doubt he put in enough work to resell it for several hundred thousand. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On 05/27/2013 01:54 PM, Liam Proven wrote: No, but for something like this, you call up Christie's or Sotheby's and say "Apple I"...and that's about it. Selling an Apple I takes no more "specialist knowledge", "expertise", or "contacts" other than thirty seconds with Google at the nearest public library. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 05/27/2013 12:31 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: And width a slightly widened orifice...just like I got from those type of people who shrugged, said "that's capitalism!", and walked off with the money that I'd earned. Twice. There will be no third time. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 2013 May 27, at 8:56 AM, Dave McGuire wrote: I still haven't seen it in any way established that Hatfield had 'lesser knowledge'. What information is out there suggests the contrary. Here's another article extract: ".. a nonworking Apple-1 failed to attract its reserve price of just over $75,000 at an auction *last year* in London." (em. mine) (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/technology/apple-1-computers-jump- in-value-at-auctions.html?_r=0) The unit was purchased from Hatfield in non-working condition. Hatfield settled for a sure thing, the middleman did the work and took a gamble. And we still don't know when the 40K$ transaction took place, as I have pointed out already at least one article suggests it took place two/three years ago.

On 2013 May 27, at 12:21 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: Here's a source that I'll presume has some reliability: Mike Willegal's Apple I registry states Hatfield's unit was "Sold to a Texas based collector in fall of 2012 for $40,000" The 640K sale was in November of 2012. Which sale was first? We don't know, but as November is late fall, on a strict statistical basis it's more likely that Hatfield's 40K sale was before the 640K sale, Hatfield was in a position to be both informed when he made his sale and still surprised at the later 671K sale price. Before the Nov 640K sale, no one 'had a clue' that it could go that high. The 374K sale was in June of 2012, but a unit also sold for 75K in that same month, and around that same time period a unit failed to sell for 75K. In 2009, units sold for both 17K and 50K. It's hard to say whether there's any significant correlation between working/non- working and market value (and for us it's not really an issue as it's not likely to be difficult to get working, depending upon how picky one wants to be about date codes & c.), but it is to say that market values in the same time period are varying widely. In the fall of 2012 I don't see it as non-sensical for even an informed person to view the 374K sale as an outlier, take the sure-thing 40K and let someone else deal with the hassles. Maybe Hatfield has some regrets - although he doesn't sound like it - but he had already registered his unit with Willegal, he doesn't strike me as being ignorant of what he had.

Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> bloviated: It's easy to pose yourself as some sort of moral high groun dholder when you transmute my explanation of a voluntary win/win exchange into a version that allows fraud and deception. You can win any argument you want as long as you falsely restate it in terms that make you look virtuous. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man> -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: To split hairs, adjusted for inflation $666.66 in 1976 would be roughly $2,724.41 in 2013, which means $40,000 would be roughly 14.68 times what he originally paid for it. $40k is still a good bit more than what he originally paid for it, but not anywhere near a 60x return on his original investment. That's also not figuring in any upgrades he made to the board (memory?) or anything else he bought for it (cassette interface? software? user group fees and dues?). He made money, sure, but it was far less than a 60x return on his original investment. I think it is probably safer to say Mr. Hatfield made closer to an 8-10x return on his original investment, which after dragging the thing around all these years, really isn't all that spectacular.

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: Or, . . . "You saw how that went. Howzbout we clean out the rest of your closets and split the proceeds?"

In article <alpine.DEB.2.00.1305271438140.21733 at brioche.invalid.domain>, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> writes: Now you've got a victim complex? I looked through my archive of messages I've sent to this list. In 2012-2013 I have made these replies to messages of yours: 2838 07-Aug-2012 > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: To all with interest in IBM 7090<< I 2850 08-Aug-2012 > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: To all with interest in IBM 7090<< I 2967 26-Aug-2012 > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: LPC1768 tiny terminal emulator<< In 3924 19-April > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: Last chance on Local Pickup machines i 3934+ 19-April > "General Discussi Re: Last chance on Local Pickup machines i 4087 Sun 17:58 > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: Another original Apple I sells for an 4088 Sun 18:00 > cctalk <cctalk at cl Re: Another original Apple I sells for an Discarding this thread, there are 3 messages where I'm just discussing some SGI stuff and one about a tiny box terminal emulator. In April, you complained that people aren't doing with their property what *you* think they should do with it. I said that if you don't like it, you should buy the machine and then you got all pissy. So we're establishing a clear pattern here. Whenever someone else does with their private property something that you don't like, you complain about it. Whether that's scrapping it because they need the space/money or whether that's selling or reselling it and making a profit, both seem to bring out complaints from you. I'm not even asking you to stop complaining. Five messages in the past 18 months hardly seems something to get so upset about, so I suspect it has nothing to do with me at all. It really has to do with the fact that I will stand up and vigorously defend private property rights and that just pisses you off because you don't like other people having the right to do with their property whatever they want. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

There is probably an auction fee tacked on (percentage of selling price) for the auction house. -----Original Message----- From: mc68010 Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:31 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Another original Apple I sells for an insane amount On 5/26/2013 12:53 AM, Tothwolf wrote: Here's a list to the actual auction that ended yesterday. http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/17377276_original-apple-1-computer-1976 I am not sure where this $671,400 figure came from the press throws around. It sold for 420,000 euros which google is telling me is $542,220 usd. Still way too much but, less then they got last time.

In article <alpine.DEB.2.00.1305261619390.21733 at brioche.invalid.domain>, Tothwolf <tothwolf at concentric.net> writes: No, it's capitalism. Using your logic above, it's just "plain wrong" that you didn't have a flurry of communication with Fred Hatfield to wise him up that he should hold out for more money. If the reseller is culpable as you describe, then YOU are culpable because you clearly have the knowledge of what these sorts of things are selling for and you didn't alert Mr. Hatfield. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Sun, 27 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: Agreed...it's unfortunate. Capitalism doesn't /have/ to be sleazy, but so few people follow Carnegie's views on wealth and capitalism. ;) (Gain education, gain all the money you can, give all the money you can) -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On Sun, 27 May 2013, Liam Proven wrote: I think they're referring to the guy that bought it for $40,000 and then resold it for more than he got it for from another guy a few moths prior. -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On Sun, 27 May 2013, Fred Cisin wrote: The housing market isn't near as predictable as Moore's Law...there's too much backing by Evil Black Magic. I'm betting those "financial advisors" would also recommend subprime lending? ;) -- Cory Smelosky http://gewt.net/ Personal stuff http://gimme-sympathy.org Experiments

On Sun, 26 May 2013, Dave McGuire wrote: Taken advantage of to the tune of more than $500,000 seems more than just sleazy. The repair cost of the Apple I board couldn't have been all that much, but even if it had been say $250.00 or even $1000.00 (which I suspect it was /far/ less), the middleman still took advantage of someone who is 84 years old. Maybe some people can do something like this and still sleep at night, but I couldn't. On another note, I wonder if Fred Hatfield has any stories he could tell us about his experience with the Apple I and early user community?