[Hallicrafters] How to Destroy a Nice Hallicrafters Receiver

[Peter Markavage]

One only has to look back at the 50's, 60's, 70's CQ's, QST's, et al to
see all the mods proposed for rigs to add features, improve performance,
etc. Over those years, have added switches and controls to front panels,
additional holes for tubes or whatever to chassis's, holes into the back
panel for whatever. It was common to do, fun, sometimes they worked fine,
sometimes they didn't, but it was the nature of the amateur experimenter
"back then". Today it's, "I want it pristine, even with all its faults
and limitations". Almost like a "tree hugger" in disguise. And I agree
with Jim in that, I think they all have "send to landfill" note written
somewhere on the bottom. But, until then, give your Hallicrafters a hug.

Pete, wa2cwa


On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:45:48 -0400 Jim Brannigan <jbrannig at optonline.net>
writes:
> Absolutely correct Todd.
> 
> I tore apart lots of ARC-5's and other surplus radio for parts and a 
> bare 
> chassis.
> To this day I have no qualms about changing parts or improving 
> circuits.  I 
> would rather not drill a front panel, but if a chassis needs a hole, 
> it gets 
> one.
> I like my radios to work, besides, some day these will all wind up 
> in a 
> landfill.
> 
> Jim
> 
> > 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).
> >
> > There was a time when ARC-5 receivers really were $5 or less NIB, 
> and
> > people had no issue with improving the performance (by cutting or
> > 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
> > involve using a different size switch, knob, whatever. When a 
> newer,
> > improved tube was developed, you might even adapt your radio to 
> use
> > it, to improve its utility. When technology advanced sufficiently 
> to
> > require a new rig (like when SSB came along or solid state), your 
> old
> > rig was not all that attractive an option for others and you were
> > lucky to get something out of it. If you couldn't afford a new 
> SSB
> > receiver (75A-4s and SX-115s were pricey), you might just drill 
> and
> > blast to add a product detector to your older rig. I agree, the
> > receiver looks pretty sad compared to an unmodified example, but I 
> bet
> > it seemed fine at the time. It could be restored if someone wanted 
> to
> > do it badly enough. The starting bid price isn't much incentive.
> >
> > Try this: the next time you decide to put an addition on your 
> 1980s
> > home, change the kitchen cabinets, or repaint it a different 
> color,
> > stop and imagine someone in the future looking back and 
> criticizing
> > your choices and thinking ill of you for them. It might only be a
> > house to you, but to someone in the future, it could be R at RE, LQQK 
> -
> > VINTAGE HOMESTEAD! After all, split-level ranches or condo 
> apartments
> > might be the desirable, historical home style of the future, and 
> we
> > could be condemned for hacking them up. (o:
> >
> > ~ Todd/'Boomer'  KA1KAQ