[Hallicrafters] How to Destroy a Nice Hallicrafters Receiver

[Roger K8RI]

> On 7/11/06, Peter May <peter_may at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> <snip>
>> It's hard to believe, but there was a time when an old tube radio was 
>> worth
>> nothing, anything not solid state was valueless.
I still tend to think of many of them as worth little.



I'm also going to admit to what on this group amounts to almost blasphemy; 
I converted an HT-33B that looked like new to use a different tube.



At one time I had a *pile* of ARC-5s that were nothing but parts for 
projects.



>> So people modded and experimented these sets with no concern to the
>> cosmetic/aesthetic appearance value, or the interest of future 
>> generations.

Most of the old rigs I tried to keep "looking" stock, but back in "the days" 
I modified many a commercial rig including a KWM-2, 75S3, 32S3, SR160, HT44, 
SX117



>> If they messed up, they stripped it for parts or binned it with no 
>> regrets.
>> If it was missing knobs they pinched them from another radio.
>



I always had enough duplicates that I could get knobs from some where.


> Herein lies the real issue. Unless someone knows it was converted last
> week by some collector who 'knew better', it's not really fair to
> judge the past by today's standards (or at all, for that matter).
>



However so far we are talking peanuts.  I have an airplane that is the 
oldest of it's kind in existence. It was built in 1959 which makes it older 
than many of the radios we talk about. List price when new was $19,300. It's 
worth many times that now.  There is a museum that would like it, but of 
course that would only get me a tax deduction.  Being retired, on a pension, 
and SS, tax deductions are not real high on my "needed list"<:-)) There is 
little left in that airplane that is stock. The thin 2-piece windshield has 
been replaced with a one piece that is 1/2" thick.  It extends quite a ways 
forward of where the original ended and that meant a fair amount of metal 
work. The side windows have been replaced with some that are 1/4" thick and 
the rear window on each side is a long 1/4" thick unit and it  didn't even 
have a window there.


> There was a time when ARC-5 receivers really were $5 or less NIB, and

In the early 60's you could often find them for free and by the dozens.



Ø      people had no issue with improving the performance (by cutting or

Ø

Most of us just used the ARC-5s as a convenient source of parts and 1625s.



> drilling) of their surplus or current technology rig the same as some
> do today with their recent Yaecomwood riceboxes, for whatever reason.
> Once upon a time this old gear was actually seen for its utility and
> not as a financial investment, R at RE collectible, or means of upstaging
> your collector friends. There probably were a few who were even
> envious that the former owner had a monitor 'scope in his receiver,
> like the Central Electronics 100V/200V transmitters.
>
> If your radio broke down, you fixed it. The object was to be on the
> air or at least listening, not admiring it on a shelf. Fixing it might

I tended to want the radio, even if modified, to look good.

<snip>