[Clegg] Clegg Thor 6 and Thor Six and Thor VI - - really?

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

One thought I had Gene, was the possibility that the Roman numerals
'fit' better with the Greek God/Goddess naming scheme of the day.
That's the best I could come up with. I'm one of those people who
things real numbers look best on equipment, so maybe that's the
scenario they faced as well. Insignificant stuff in the bigger
picture, but considering the reputation and quality of the Clegg gear
along with the history of Ed Clegg himself, it's all a bit intriguing.

Bob, I like the Thor story. It's nice when it really does work out in
the end. Good karma?

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ/4

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:04 PM, MUCHSTUFF <soundval at muchstuff.com> wrote:
> HI Pete and Todd,
>
> I thought that understanding the Gonset line was complicated.
> Clegg may have fewer items, but greater confusion.
> I noticed some comments on plan drawings that indicated the draftsman
> (probably "man" in those days) was confused as to what plant location to
> address things to.
> So the marketing people used "6" or "VI" at whim, or maybe according to the
> temperature of the sidewalk in Bug Tussle, Texas.
> I confess.  I spent hours trying to figure this little problem.  Finally I
> admitted my ignorance and posted the questions.
> To add to this, I had a perfectly good picture of a "Thor VI" from a QST ad
> and I must have erased it.
> NO!  I'm not going back over this pile of QST's.  In fact an ad with the
> large heading/title saying "Thor VI" used a picture of a "Thor 6".
> I wonder, did they sometimes use "VI" because they thought it looked
> classier?
> This is a bad habit - - - looking for rationality  - - - maybe there's a
> Rational Annonymous I could attend.