[Hallicrafters] Re: a mirror finish

Mon Dec 26 20:13:55 EST 2005

I do not think Hallicrafters, or the other manufacturers of that era, were
all that concerned over the cosmetics. This is more of a factor with the
'baby boom' generation of today trying to recapture the magic of their
youth than it was with the people using the gear forty to sixty years ago.
Then the abiding concern was on performance. Remember, Hams, and other
radio hobbyists, used to build their gear. Not many could afford to buy it!

This does not mean that appearance was not important. It does mean that
more importance is put on "how it looks" today than it was when the
equipment was being sold originally. I doubt anyone paid much attention to
what color the capacitors were underneath the chassis in 1947 or 1967. It
did not affect the resale value then. 	

I have often wondered how much actual dollar difference there is between a
SX-100 (or any other receiver, transmitter or transceiver) that is 100%
correct and one that is 75% correct? Not a single instance, but on the
whole for the average, such as basing the result son 50 of the same RX bing
sold in like condition +/-5%.  	

I do know that people today pay more attention to the front panel of the
receiver than they do to the actual functionality of the rig. Doubt it? Go
ahead and spend the money to rebuild one electrically, sparing no cost to
get it back to original performance levels, and leave the exterior looking
nice, but not bright and shiny. The knobs can be original, no holes drilled
in the cabinet and the print easily readable. Which will sell quicker and
for more?  

The same is true of restored cars. I spent thousands rebuilding the
undercarriage on my 1972 Pontiac Lemans Sport Endura convertible. There was
no GTO convertible that year, this was as close as you got. The front end
was the GTO clip.	

The car had the original white leather interior and it was in excellent
condition. I did not do a thing to it. The engine was the HPO 455 and I
totally rebuilt it bolt by bolt.	

When in a judged show the car pointed very well and generally won her
class. But in an owner's and/or spectator popularity vote it seldom won!
The paint was the difference. What was there was very nice, but was not
like the finishes of today with that wet paint look. Most of the repainted
restored vehicles have that look nowadays. When the paint was original, it
did well technically with judges, but did poorly against finishes of today,
as the spectators jus tlove that look lik eyou can each your hand right
into the paint. it is beautiful, no question to it. My top of her class
show stopper, a 1929 model A Ford tudor sedan with 40 coats of hand rubbed
gold metal flake lacquer on the body and candy apple red over the gold on
the fenders and other areas, was stunning forty years ago. As were the 200
pieces of real chrome plated metal! That car would still win today, but not
the 1972 Pontiac!	

The paint made the difference in the sale price too! The buyers almost
never asked about the drive train or engine. If they did, it was generally
only a casual question. As long as the exterior was bright and shiny, they
were 'blind' to the mechanical condition! The interior? They looked, but as
long as it was not obviously torn, discolored or otherwise 'obviously'
damaged, they went right back to that shine!	

While this has always been true to an extent, it is way more of a factor
today among 'collectors' ... Bingo! "Collectors"! not "users"! Back then
they were using, not collecting. If they were collecting it was junk
dragged home for spare parts. 	

If you want to do it right, then rebuild it electrically and spare no
expense! But do so because you plan to keep it! Otherwise you are apt to
lose money, that is, if you can sell it! Without that shine, its hard to
get that extra dime!	

DBF

----------
From: DW Holtman <future212 at comcast.net>
To: hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] Re: a mirror finish
Date: Monday, December 26, 2005 7:41 PM

I have to disagree with Ron. I have a couple of SX-100's and an SX-42, 
that I spent hours polishing up the chassis with Wenol. They look great. 
I don't think cleaning and polishing is modifying. I think that bright 
orange and yellow plastic caps through out the chassis is more of a mod 
that cleaning and polishing. But, the only other choice is to re-stuff 
the old paper caps.

I'm sure that if it were not for the bottom line (increased retail 
prices), Hallicrafters and many other radio builders would have put more 
money into the cosmetics of the chassis, cabinet and front panel.

73's
DW Holtman
WB7SSN

 Ron Lawrence KC4YOY wrote:

>| Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:10:04 -0500
>| From: Bill Gerhold <k2wh at optonline.net>
>| Subject: RE: [Hallicrafters] SX-42 Project - gorgeous!
>| I was able to get the same bright shiny finish on a HT-32 chassis by
using
>| Stainless steel or metal polish. The results however are a mirror
finish.
>
>
>Did it come from Hallicrafters with a "mirror finish"?
>
>Is this about Restoring/Preserving vintage radios, or customizing them?
>
>Why not chrome plate the chassis, metal flake the cabinet,
>and rip out all those old tubes and stick in ICs while you're at it.
>Maybe even dump that old dial and pointer and put in a digital display.
>
>
>Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Hallicrafters mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
>----
>List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
>dfischer at usol.com
>----
>Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org
>
>
>  
>

______________________________________________________________
Hallicrafters mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/hallicrafters
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
Post: mailto:Hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net
----
List Administrator: Duane Fischer, W8DBF **for assistance**
dfischer at usol.com
----
Hallicrafters Collectors International: http://www.w9wze.org