Where's The Logic

[n9...@hotmail.com]

Hopefully I'm not beating a dead horse so to speak on the subject, but where is the logic behind sellers who are asking outlandish prices for their radios lately? I'm seeing common wood sets, consoles, and more going for several hundred dollars and more. Some are actually in good condition, LOL. To me it seems as though they're holding some nice sets as hostage rather thank having them go to good homes. I don't see these being sold or bid either. This "outbreak" seems to be happening on Ebay and Craig's List as well. No, I'm not upset for personal reasons. I'm happy with my collection and haven't been in the purchasing mode in quite awhile. On the upshot, with all these high priced radios on the market, it would be relatively easy for me to sell some of my sets at a fair price. Thanks for reading.

[Michael Black]

Maybe they don't want to sell them. I've been to garage sales where they
don't set a price, and nothing seems to sell, it's almost like they feel
an obligation (or demand) to have a sale, but don't really want to get rid
of things.

Or maybe, they don't know the proper price. Or they are way too hopeful.
New things, I've seen people expect more than they should for a used item,
I've assumed it's because they bought it new and think it deserves a high
price, when everyone else is selling much lower so the high price is
passed over.

Michael

[conklin]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net...

I've seen acoustic phonographs, say the Edison Amberola 1A, posted for sale
at prices twice those listed in guidebooks and even those quoted by experts
in the field who sell through nationwide paper auctions. However, other
units are selling for the same price as 10 years ago.

[hifi-tek]

<n9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6544e28b-3e29-413c...@googlegroups.com...

IMO,some of this is caused by the plethora of cable channel programs. These
"reality" shows touch on all sorts of products of years gone by. Whether or
not an item is rare, a collector's item or whatever, the stuff is touted as
rare, collectible and so on. Hence the goofy prices asked. And the yard sale
prices have always amused me. Almost always waaaay too high for the
age/condition of the items.
My $.02 worth...
Tom

[Michael Black]

That's true. Even PBS now has "Market Warriors" on Monday nights this
summer where some "antique experts" are out to antique fleamarkets trying
to get a good deal so they can make a profit at an auction. The premise
doesn't make sense, you can't make much or any profit if you buy from
someone who knows the value of the item, and then hope to resell it.
You have to find a raw source.

Of course, every time some "expert" is on the radio here to talk about
record collecting, most of the calls are from people who hope they have
some valuable record but don't. They just don't have any handle on what
makes something rare, so they think popular artist will being in a good
price.

And people forget that price someone will pay varies. If I'm buying
something for myself, there's a certain price cap. Someone buying to
resell will have a lower price cap, since they need to make a profit. The
largest used book sale has missed that, seeing the people with the barcode
readers coming so they can automatically check prices on the internet, the
sale has started raising prices considerably, hoping for a maximum return.
But I may not be willing to pay that higher price, after all, I don't buy
on the internet, I buy at used book sales. What's worse, they seem to be
dumping a lot of books so they can charge those higher prices, feeling a
filtered selection of books is what people want, and then are willing to
pay.

Michael

[Buck Frobisher]

The only reason I could imagine for those silly prices is that perhaps there
are some sellers out there that are trying to create a market with a higher
price scenario. Good luck with that, I say :)

The kind of stuff I like to collect (just ordinary run of the mill stuff for
the most part) dropped dramatically in the 2008 financial crash, and never
really came back.

But the pricey ones from before that period still seem to have kept their
higher values, from the few I take an interest in watching on eBay.

Who cares, though? You "vote with your feet" by not buying them.

<n9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6544e28b-3e29-413c...@googlegroups.com...

[conklin]

What is interesting are the data which shows that young people today don't
even listen to the radio.

I must admit that most of my radio listining to day is streaming from the
Internet, and through wi-fi radios. I'd love to have a Pandora-equipped car
radio.



"Buck Frobisher" <farsi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:503ae6e3$0$15069$882e...@usenet-news.net...

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, conklin wrote:

> What is interesting are the data which shows that young people today don't
> even listen to the radio.
>

Are they the ones buying?

If so, there always seems to be a thread through the young to go after
something older. Some of the appeal to records among kids seems to be the
retro factor. Look at the Henry Kloss designed radios with their analog
dial, and then all the knockoffs. For that matter, while it's an
expensive market, there seems to be a trend among some to get a nice
analog watch, really expensive, the only reason being for style.

Michael

[conklin]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net...

> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, conklin wrote:
>
>> What is interesting are the data which shows that young people today
>> don't
>> even listen to the radio.
>>
> Are they the ones buying?
>
> If so, there always seems to be a thread through the young to go after
> something older. Some of the appeal to records among kids seems to be the
> retro factor. Look at the Henry Kloss designed radios with their analog
> dial, and then all the knockoffs. For that matter, while it's an
> expensive market, there seems to be a trend among some to get a nice
> analog watch, really expensive, the only reason being for style.
>
> Michael
>
>> I must admit that most of my radio listining to day is streaming from the
>> Internet, and through wi-fi radios. I'd love to have a Pandora-equipped
>> car
>> radio.

No, us old folks buy old radios. Kids want to stream sound from the
internet.

[BQ340]

On 8/27/2012 6:55 PM, conklin wrote:

> No, us old folks buy old radios. Kids want to stream sound from the
> internet.

The kids at my work do that, I don't care about the source of the music
but those 1/2" diameter speakers they use sound terrible, but they
don't seem to know any better.

MikeB

--
Email is valid but not checked often

[conklin]

"BQ340" <bq...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:503be98d$0$7623$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

Most seem to use earphones, which do sound pretty good, actually. And 1/2"
speakers? The cell phones must have speakers the size of pinheads.

[BQ340]

They use these things:

<http://dx.com/p/mini-rechargeable-mp3-music-speaker-player-with-fm-usb-3-5mm-tf-slot-green-91445?item=16>

How things have changed since AA5's. With everything being disposable
now I don't see there being any more antique anything eventually.

[conklin]

"BQ340" <bq...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message

news:503c077d$0$7477$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

Nah, the 2A3s were the workhorse of true hi-fi. -:)

[Joe Bento]

>
> Nah, the 2A3s were the workhorse of true hi-fi. -:)
>
>

Amazingly, the 2A3 is in current production, but the cost!!!

Joe, N6DGY


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
SPAMfighter has removed 156 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

Do you have a slow PC? Try Free scan
http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen

[Brenda Ann]

"BQ340" wrote in message
news:503c077d$0$7477$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

They use these things:

<http://dx.com/p/mini-rechargeable-mp3-music-speaker-player-with-fm-usb-3-5mm-tf-slot-green-91445?item=16>

How things have changed since AA5's. With everything being disposable
now I don't see there being any more antique anything eventually.

MikeB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a Nokia 5800 XpressMusic phone (no longer use it as a phone, but
can't be beat for an mp3 player with built in speakers.)

The speakers in this thing are barely 1/3"x perhaps 3/4" (stereo pair), but
the sound is amazing. It compares very favorably to a Zenith Royal 500H (the
one with the large oval speaker) for sound quality, though does not get as
loud of course. It sounds so much better than any smaller pocket radio that
it really blows my mind.

No, it's not a pair of Wharfdales or Carvers, but the technology is very
impressive, acoustically.

[conklin]

"Brenda Ann" <newsg...@fullspectrumradio.org> wrote in message
news:gIKdnc_2OeCotqHN...@giganews.com...

To my mind James B. Lansing made the best speakers ever. MP3s can sound
great on smaller speakers, but if you put the medium on an old-fasioned
hi-fi setup with large speakers, MP3s sound thin and shrill.

[John Stone]

On 8/28/12 12:07 PM, in article
MM6dnTnv79Y8TaHN...@earthlink.com, "conklin"

<nilkn...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>
> To my mind James B. Lansing made the best speakers ever. MP3s can sound
> great on smaller speakers, but if you put the medium on an old-fasioned
> hi-fi setup with large speakers, MP3s sound thin and shrill.
>
>

That isn't because they are MP3's, it's because they are MP3's with data
compressed to such a point that the artifacts are very audible. I defy
anyone to reliably pick out the difference between a 320kbs MP3 made from an
uncompressed WAV file and the WAV file itself. Even 192kbs is still very
good and hard to distinguish from uncompressed. As for JBL's being the best
ever, well, that's a matter of opinion. They certainly had superb build
quality in the old days, but as for their sound, that's always been a matter
of debate. Some of their most legendary designs, like the L100, were, in
fact pretty mediocre performers.

[conklin]

"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CC624011.B3C47%jms...@comcast.net...

Did you like the early AR speakers?

[John Stone]

On 8/28/12 12:56 PM, in article
8PGdnaiHG5iIQaHN...@earthlink.com, "conklin"

I thought the AR's were very good in bass performance for their day. But
the midrange was recessed and the highs were very rolled off, making them
sound dull. My preference back in those days was for the British speakers
like Quads, Spendor, IMF, etc.

[conklin]

"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:CC626C6D.B3C4C%jms...@comcast.net...

Bass was "good for their day?" Only if you took size into account. The AR
were low-efficiency. All bass-reflex systems were vastly better and still
are.

[John Stone]

On 8/28/12 5:44 PM, in article
C9GdnWnbS-06gqDN...@earthlink.com, "conklin"

<nilkn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> "John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:CC626C6D.B3C4C%jms...@comcast.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/28/12 12:56 PM, in article
>> 8PGdnaiHG5iIQaHN...@earthlink.com, "conklin"
>> <nilkn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:CC624011.B3C47%jms...@comcast.net...

>>>

>>> Did you like the early AR speakers?
>>>
>> I thought the AR's were very good in bass performance for their day. But
>> the midrange was recessed and the highs were very rolled off, making them
>> sound dull. My preference back in those days was for the British speakers
>> like Quads, Spendor, IMF, etc.
>>
>
> Bass was "good for their day?" Only if you took size into account. The AR
> were low-efficiency. All bass-reflex systems were vastly better and still
> are.
>

I don't equate low efficiency with low quality. AR speakers were meant for
home audio, not sound reinforcement, and could play plenty loud with their
acoustic suspension design and the available power in their day. You asked
me about early AR speakers. I took "early" as the period from the first AR1
through the AR3a (mid 50's to late 60's). Thiele/Small parameters had not
even been invented until the early 70's, and before that (and quite a long
time after), most reflex systems were far better on paper than in real life.
The aforementioned L100 being a case in point with a woofer with far too
high Qts and Fs for the cabinet it was in. The result was a system with a
6dB peak at 70Hz and a steep 4th order rolloff below. A virtual "boombox"
Whereas the AR3 could easily manage mid 30Hz bass- flat, and with low
distortion. Yes, it was inefficient, but even with its small size, it could
reach deeper in the bass than most, including even giant corner horn systems
like Klipshorns. What are some of your examples of "vastly better" reflex
systems of the day?

[conklin]

"John Stone" <jms...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:CC6292B9.B3C58%jms...@comcast.net...

Corner horn systems, to my mind, gave the best overall sound. I had put
together several of them with speakers from different companies.

Right now I have another home-brew speaker system with hand-wound crossovers
running in 4 cubic foot closed enclosures. The speakers came from a local
company which did custom installs, but are 15" in size with alnico (sp?)
magnets, quite heavy ones. Great sound too. JBL Midranges and I've
forgotten the tweeter manufactuer. I like them a whole lot, with the
Haffler amp. But most of the time I'm listening to the i-Phone running
through a Brookstone tower that cost about $250. Good bass, kind of. Why?
I've created manspace in the basement. The stereo upstairs.

[n9...@hotmail.com]

Interesting response. On the upshot, at least if and when I sell some of my collection at a FAIR price, perhaps I stand a better chance at getting what I want or would expect for a set. No great expectations though. Thanks all for reading.

[Michael Black]

It's hardly an antique, but I bought a TMC GPR-90 at a garage sale on
August 18th. I was really surprised to find an old tube shortwave
receiver at a garage sale, in about 20 years of going to them, I havent'
seen one before (maybe an antique radio once, another time a
reproduction). It was a house that has had garage sales before, but
suddenly there were "kids" so I suspect they were clearing out the house
after the parent died. I could see it coming down the street, I knew it
was a shortwave radio, but not the company or model until I got close. I
saw it was TMC and I knew it wasn't low end junk. I figured they'd want a
good price for it, so I was shocked when they said "$20". I said it could
go for osmething like three or four hundred, but they stayed at $20. So
there went the rest of the garage sales, and I had to lug it home by bus.
SOmeone on the bus recognized it as a shortwave receiver, and walking a
distance between buses, someone helped me carry it (it's awkward).

I haven't tried it yet. The fuse holder "cover" is missing, not sure if
that fell off on the way home. The rectifier tube is lose in the base,
but except for some dust, it's really clean. I don't know about the actual
performance, but it is better than many receivers, double conversion on
more than the highest band. It's not unlike the SP-600 I had for a decade
starting in 1972, except no 30 to 50MHz range, on the other hand, the
lower bands are divided up more than the average receiver with its 2:1
tuning range per band. And unlike the SP-600, which had 2 dials but no
fine tuning, this has fine tuning and a separate dial calibrated for the
ham bands.

So in looking for information about it, I come across an ad that clearly
was for this receiver, some area of Montreal. So last month they wanted a
hundred dollars for it, and clearly no takers. I bet if they'd advertised
in places where people were more interested, they might have found a
buyer. As it was, I didn't go out early that day, it was afternoon when i
went out and didn't expect to find much, so it was amazing not only that
someone had one for sale, that someone had it for so cheap, but that
someone like me who was interested came along and found it.

Up till 2006, I'd never seen a shortwave receiver at garage sales. Then I
found one at a rummage sale, and this is the 9th I've found altogether
since then, a mix of expensive digitally tuned portables and older analog
portables where shortwave is just an added feature. One was that Sony
2001 (their first digitally tuned sw receiver, the model before the one
with the sync detector) with the boards taken out of the case. I even did
see that Astronaut 7 or 8 in the spring, though since they were using it
as a radio, I didn't ask if it was for sale. And except for the first
one, a Grundig Satellite 500, which I just right out offered forty dollars
for since it was the first sw receiver I'd found at garage or rummage
sales, they've all been under ten dollars until the GPR-90 at $20.

Michael

[kimherron]

On 8/29/2012 1:59 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, n9...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
> It's hardly an antique, but I bought a TMC GPR-90 at a garage sale on
> August 18th. I was really surprised to find an old tube shortwave
> receiver at a garage sale, in about 20 years of going to them, I havent'
> seen one before (maybe an antique radio once, another time a
> reproduction).

Hi Michael!

You have the find of the decade so far! A GPR-90 for $20?? I've seen
that receiver go for $1000 at Dayton. That's a REALLY expensive receiver
and the military paid big bux for it in its day. They work WELL and
bring good money. That find ranks right up there with the Bendix 0526C
catilan found at the flea market for 90 cents. I was involved with that
so I know that it's factual.

If you decide to 'give' it away, let me know first. I'll take it.


--
Kim Herron W8ZV

[Michael Black]

I was surprised to find anything like it at a garage sale, and then
figured it would be priced high. I would have expected to find an S38 or
that level of low end shortwave receiver long before finding a higher end
one, after all, more people could afford the low end receivers back then,
and not only did the cheap ones likely sell more units, but there seemed
to be so many low end receivers.

Was it really a government receiver? Initially I thought it was, I think
someone once described it as an SP-600 kind of receiver. TMC ran all
those ads in QST, but much of the time they were irrelevant to ham
radio, exotic transmitters and such, I figured the ads were there to
support the magazine and likely hoping to influence hams who were in a
position to choose TMC professionally.

Yet, it has the bandspread dial for the ham bands. Almost as if they
hoped to sell it to two markets, or maybe all those radio inspectors. It
has a 1200Hz audio filter, which strikes me as being there for beacon
reception, it's the same frequency as all those FL-30 audio filters for
beacons back then. My 1950s QSTs are buried, but a websearch said it sold
for 399 originally, then later (with the crystal calibrator) 499, which
yes, 1955 to 1960 would be a fairly expensive receiver.

I haven't plugged it in yet, I have to dig for a rectifier tube. But
externally, it looks in really good shape. A bit of dust, on the front
panel, but not any on the chassis, though maybe they cleaned that up. And
no visible rust.

I wasn't looking for something like this, so had the price been where I
expected it, I probably would have passed. But it's exiting to get, not
just the price, but to again have a decent old receiver.

> If you decide to 'give' it away, let me know first. I'll take it.

Not likely, the shipping is bound to cost way more than I paid for it.

Michael VE2BVW