It took a while for some guys on comp.os.cpm to catch on. I lurk there now and then. I was not sure whether they were trolling or truly unaware that there were no original kits, but then someone else clued them in.

On Wednesday 12 March 2003 10:25, Erik S. Klein wrote: I asked about the kit and the owner did say that it was a new one he had purchased. I guess that not every one asks about the product they are buying. I was expecting the owner to add a note to the ad mentioning that it was a 'NEW' kit.

If it's not "old" then it's "new." Any spinning to try and make something seem old, when all the parts were recently made is deceptive, unless it is made crystal clear that this is just a remanufacture of an old design. Clearly, some of the parts have not been manufactured in some time, so those parts by definition are old. However, any attempt (or missing description) that fails to describe the reality of this kit, is still deception, in my opinion.

I was under the impression (based on previous classiccmp discussions) that the only way to get the bare boards was to use the plans supplied in <whichever magazine it was> to etch your own. So how would you define original? Etched from the plans or etched from the plans within some short period of time from the publication date? Or maybe etched from the plans using materials produced at the time of publication? I have a couple of really old Radio Shack board etching kits around somewhere. I'm sure that I bought them before 1980. Could I turn them into gold by using them to etch a couple of Mark-8 boards? ;-) (smiley for the humor impared)

So 25 year old PCB's make something "original"? Your definition and mine are really different then. If it's built according to the plans then it's original. Period. If you through a GAL on there and a couple 6116's then no - not original Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:02 PM, Erik S. Klein wrote:

I'm sorry. I knew this would start something. Just because something can be built cheaper doesn't mean I have the time to do it. I can build a Mark - 8 easier then a Rolls Royce. Again, sorry I said anything Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

Really when you think about it. There really is only one original Mark-8. The one done by Jon himself. Since they never were produced and were only sold as a set of plans. Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com ps. No offence taken. It's interesting to see the different opinions pss. Al finished the Mark-8 then turned to the internet On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:47 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

Robert Borsuk wrote: I would say the Royce is easier ... you can't make a 8008 chip from scratch. Ben.

Robert Borsuk wrote: So, you believe that a reproduction of the Mona Lisa made recently should be worth the same as the original. Great, I'll have someone whip up one tomorrow and you can pay me for it what the original is worth. Maybe I'll make a couple hundred. That should make me a billionaire fairly quickly.

There's a big difference between a unique work of art and an instance of a construction of a published design. Clearly for _anything_ collectible there's a scale of valuation based on age, 'low serial number', 'made by original inventor', condition, completeness, whether repairs have been made to it, etc., etc. All this arguing about imprecise, unquantifiable terms like 'original' and 'new' doesn't solve anything. The only thing that seems to be in general agreement is that the seller (probably) intentionally omitted information that might have lowered the final sales price. Which is something the Romans (well, Latin anyway) had a phrase for a long time ago...

--- ben franchuk &lt;bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca&gt; wrote: Hmm... my first thought was for bus driver/receiver chips from the OMNIBUS days (DEC 8881 and friends), but after a little reflection, I doubt the current fab processes would easily approximate the characteristics of those ancient chips we'd be trying to reproduce. The only thing in favor of such an endeavour is that the tolerances 30 years ago were so sloppy compared to today that it wouldn't be impossible to get something that behaved well enough, but didn't depend on some of the manufacturing specifics. -ethan

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Bill Sudbrink wrote: If the boards were etched within the timeframe of the original article, say anywhere between July 1974 and July 1975 (to be generous) then I would consider that "original". Also, if it was a completed machine that was built in a similar timeframe, I would consider that original. I would not consider boards that were recently fabricated and then put together with other recently fabricated components to be "original" in the context of the time that has passed from 1974 until now. It's a tricky issue to be sure, but the fact is there is a major difference between a kit that was produced at the time the article originally appeared, perhaps by Jon Titus himself, and a kit assembled The materials and components that were available in 1974 are different than those available today. The PCB is different, the etching process (unless you have an old etching kit) is different, and the date codes will be modern, unless you take the time to seek out chips from that era. Even if you were to use an old etching kit, find chips with era appropriate date codes (i.e. no later than 7526), and find all the other components that would have been appropriate for that period (or were in fact made in that period) you are still assembling a modern replica and it should be amply noted as such if you are selling it. To not mention it is unethical, and to go to lengths to hide it is outright fraud. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

Guys, this is turning into another George Bush political thread. If the buyer and seller are happy. Then be happy too. Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com ps. I got Mark 8 plans from Jon Titus and I've been collecting parts to build my own. I will consider mine "original" if I can do it finding all the old parts listed on the schematic. If I have to replace some of them then I will note the changes. On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

Please stop. I don't need a morality lesson from anyone. Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

lol. That's good. But he made it with original parts. ;) Rob Borsuk rborsuk(a)colourfull.com On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Bryan Blackburn wrote: And he confused an 8080 with the 8008 but is trying to convince the world that it will work. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

Vintage Computer Festival wrote: So you are a little slow in finishing huh. :) Lets say I homebrewed a computer using a 8008 rather than the Mark-8, in 1975, and put it on e-bay today. Just because it is not as well know as the Mark 8 , does this make it less of a collectors item since it too is a 'original item'? Ben. PS. Don't worry I am still designing my XT killer PC from TTL, so maybie my 12/24 bit cpu will not be ready in 1983 ... umm 2003 instead. Note a TTL computer could still have been designed and marketed in the 1980's since memory still was the largest price in a computer system. ALSO lets not talk about GEORGE, I am tired all this beating around the Bush.!!

SCROTUS has ruled to prohibit any further investigation of whether his is real. But Clinton will show his to anybody. Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon denied that his was a fake. Ford dropped his and broke it. Quayle never did figure out how to use it. Jimmy Carter lusted after one in his heart.

This is one if the mysteries of the classic computer market. In my eyes, such a computer would even be more valueable than a Mark-8, since it shows some of the open ends of evolution. The hype about names has often be an issue on the list, though I still miss a satisfying conclusion. One of the KIMs I own is eventualy the best example. It's serial numer 0001, which makes it, by any mean, THE first 6502 computer at all, and probably the first 6502 CPU - as far as this can go. Most definitly, this baby might fetch a god pirce (that is _IF_ i would ever sell it), still I doubt that it will go over what an Apple 1 can make. Even considering the outstanding historic relevance (beside that to me a KIM is still way more cool than an Apple), and that even KIMs get to be somewhat higher prices, the whole thing is in no way understandable. My only conclusion is that people pay for hyped up names (see the ridiculous for turnkey IMSAI/Altairs), and not historic value - they just belive that the hype has so real background. I guess that's the problem... Nobody tries to beat him personaly ... SCNR Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 4.0 am 03./04. Mai 2003 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Who cares about Commodore (*ups - duck and cover*), real KIMS where made by MOS! It was only 62% of the last A1 you sold ... and even less considering prior sales. Shure, but that stuff is by any mean wothless anyway, so the value is strict hype, while classiccomps have at least a historc value. Gruss H. -- VCF Europa 4.0 am 03./04. Mai 2003 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Vintage Computer Festival wrote: Well if you don't reasearch what you collect that is your problem. While most things go for dirt cheap consider the value if any old computer equipment if you had to build it again.Look at the univac for sale on ebay ... More than most people can afford yes, less than the cost to rebuild yes as well. Ben.

At 10:44 AM 3/12/03 -0800, you wrote: I have the original Radio-Electronics issue (July 1974) with the Mark-8 article by Jonathan A. Titus. I'll be happy to sell it someone for $200. The article itself is only five pages. Readers were asked to send $5 plus postage to R-E in New York to receive a 52-page package of "complete construction details, more data on how it works, a group of eight experiments you can perform with the computer and other important information." Jon Titus' article goes on to describe the six different modules (Main CPU, Memory Address, Input Mux, Memory, Output and Readout) and an interface to the TV Typewriter (from R-E, September 1973). It also provides a parts list, power requirements (+5 VDC at 3 amps and -9 VDC at 1.5 amps), and a software example. It's all interesting reading and goes in to a fair amount of detail, but construction would require the 52-page plans, not just the R-E article. As a point of reference, the parts list indicates that a complete set of circuit boards were available from "Techniques, Inc." of Englewood, New Jersey, for $47.50. Regarding the 8008 microprocessor, the article has a footnote: For more detailed data on the Microprocessor IC write to Intel Corp., 3065 Bowers Ave., Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 - ask for a copy of "8008, 8-Bit Parallel Central Processor Unit-Users Manual." This manual was offered free at the time this article went to press. Hope this helps. Cheers, Dan www.decodesystems.com/wanted.html

they 'New' and working 8008's are not that hard to come by. I recently bought 15 of them for a project (http://www.jkearney.com/tiny8demo/) and could get more if necessary. Not cheap, though. cpu+rom+ram static rams. This would be a fun project. I did a design (but haven't built) of a Mark-8 using an FPGA and an 8008. The 8008 could be omitted and implemented in the FPGA, but I think it's fun to use the actual old processors: http://www.jkearney.com/8008/uMark8.htm Jim

Look at the VHDL file debounce.vhd. It is a simple but effective digital debouncer.

--- Jim Kearney &lt;jim(a)jkearney.com&gt; wrote: I have a ceramic 8008 on an 11/34 console board sitting in a pile. I could certainly borrow it for this application. I've been thinking of a Mark-8, but I will probably never have enough time to build an original. This one (or the uMark8) sounds feasible. How much is "not cheap"? $50? More? Would you consider a group buy of the Tiny-8 design? I doubt I'd want to build one at prototype-PCB costs. -ethan

I've seen a couple of Stephen's reproductions re-sold on ebay without the proper notice of "reproduction". Last year a completed one sold for $3303.10 on ebay, and the seller deliberately hid the fact that it was a reproduction. He also sold it under a private auction so it would be impossible to email the bidders and let them know. I know this because I emailed the seller, and never received a reply, and then I emailed ebay. They replyed to me, but simply forwarded my emails to the seller and told me, in so many words, that they didn't care and had no intention of forwarding my email to the bidders. -Bryan