[ARC5] Re: [Milsurplus] History of Ham Mods: Opinions?

[Mike Morrow]

>First off...  I start to get uneasy whenever somebody starts talking 
>about "Collector's Guides" for ANYTHING.
>
>It tells me that the item in question is no longer appreciated for 
>it's intrinsic value. 

You are really living in a dream world at all odds with reality.

Did you ever hear about stamp, coin, and currency collecting?  How about
firearms collecting?  I'm citing two common areas out of many thousands?

Just what is the "intrinsic" value of, say, a Confederate T-35 "Indian Princess"
$5 note?  One with your outlook would say "zero."  A collector would likely say
$40,000 to $60,000, if one was on market for sale.

Just what is the "intrinsic" value of, say, a Model 1860 Spencer Carbine in
excellent condition?  One with your outlook would say "zero" especially since
ammo isn't available for it in any quantity.  A collector would likely say 
$2,000 to $3,000.

>... some yahoo says that a pretty BC-348 that probably sat on
>some workbench at Fort Monmouth all through WW2 is a 
>Holy Relic, and a piece with "historic significance" ...

This is analogous to someone claiming that a Sharps Rifle was
General Grant's personal firearm.  A collector knows the worth of
such claims...a fool does not.  Yet that Sharps rifle still has
historic value regardless of knowledge of who actually used it where.

>... therefore commands a selling price that is several times it's 
>original government acquisition cost.

Never happened, AFAIK.  I've seen figures somewhere that a BC-348
typically cost the US government in WWII about $400.  That is
equivalent to about $5,000 in 2008 dollars.  No one has ever seen
a BC-348 go for even a significant fraction of that, even on ebay.
Most don't even go for $400 in 2008!  

Was a BC-348 worth $70 in 1968?  Was a T-22/ARC-5 worth $15 in 1968?
Most BC-348s and T-22s on ebay sell for less than that, corrected to
2008 dollars. 

But this side discussion hasn't much to do with the main principle
of collectibility. 

>...nowadays, the biggest question is HOW MUCH CAN I GET FOR IT?

I guess I must have missed those days when folks offered their
possessions for sale based on how *little* they could get for them.

>It has NOTHING to do with history or the significance of the role a 
>particular item played in events.

With the equipment that I, and many others on this list, claim proudly
to COLLECT, it is immaterial if my BC-453 flew with Doolittle over
Tokyo.  It represents the history of engineering and manufacturing
of a vital piece of gear in support of US military requirements in
time of nation emergency.  That limited history may be of no value
to you above the value of some old beacon band radio, but by God it
has value to me.

>These phony "historic value" fairy tales are EASY to start, in order 
>to increase selling price.

Having monitored ebay claims for vintage radio gear for more than a
decade (as a buyer...I trade but never sell), I have seen no examples
of the excess that one would conclude from your epistle are frequent.
Certainly you grossly mis-characterize *at least* 99.99 percent of
the claims.   Most claim overstatements are of the "this T-18/ARC-5
was used on a B-17" variety.

>It was there because it was necessary to know prior to the drop if 
>Japanese radio or RADAR operations could interfere with the RADAR 
>altitude trigger aboard "Little Boy"...   which was, believe it or 
>not, a modified APS-13 "Tail End Charlie"  RADAR set

The WWII bombs each used four AN/APS-13 sets, modified in frequency of
operation in order to not mutually interfere.

>...used in the P-51 Mustang to cover it's ass in the event that a 
>Messerschmidt slipped in behind without the pilot noticing.

Used also on night fighters like the P-61, but not for long.  Someone
figured out that German aircraft could home in on the signal.

>Now that we know these facts about the BC-1031 and the APS-13, what's 
>the effect? Does this bit of information make ALL BC-1031s and 
>APS-13s MORE VALUABLE on the so-called "collector's market"

It adds interesting information.  What's your point?  That the value of
an AN/APS-13 should only be based on its "intrinsic" value for use today
as a "proximity warning" radar (Zero!)?  Not many of those RT-34/APS-13
sets used on the bombs ever reached the surplus market! :-)

>WHERE DID WE GET THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE MUSEUM CURATORS???

Why do you find that an offensive concept?  In limited-interest areas such
as WWII electronics, it is very very very fortunate that some individuals
undertake to preserve this material, since precious few real museums ever
will.  I thank God there are people who see value to, say, an AN/ART-13
beyond its use as a ham rig on 3885 kHz.

Almost NOTHING that has any collectible value has much of what you term
"intrinsic" value.  Defining the value of a surplus radio by "intrinsic"
value is applying a constraint that ABSOLUTELY NO other collector's 
interest area has EVER practised.

Mike / KK5F