[ICOM] IC-375

[John Geiger]

One thing to also consider is that you can buy quite a few new radios that will cover the bands that the Icom 970 did, at least a stock 970.  You can get a TS2000, FT897, FT857, FT817, Icom 7000, Icom 910H, Icom 706MKIIG.  The TS2000 and the 910H can also be fitted for 1.2ghz.  With the exception of the 910H, all of these radios give you many more bands than the 970 did, so to many people, there isn't a reason to buy a 970, I can do better on the current market for less.

There isn't a new radio that covers the frequencies that the Icom 375 did.

73s John AA5JG


--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Mike Olbrisch <mike-2007 at elp.rr.com> wrote:

> From: Mike Olbrisch <mike-2007 at elp.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: [ICOM] IC-375
> To: "'ICOM Reflector'" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 9:45 PM
> Well - there it is....  No matter what the cause - the price
> is the price.  The
> value to you is the value to you.  You pay it or you
> don't.  
> 
> That's why I drive a 15 y/o Toyota and a 32 y/o jeep.
> 
> Good luck - whatever you decide.
> 
> Mike - KD9KC.
> El Paso, Tx.
> DM61rt
> 
> Molon labe. [mo-lone lah-veh] Google it...
> 
> =============================================
> The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights
> reserved.
> =============================================  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net 
> > [mailto:icom-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
> mecker at peoplepc.com
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:59 PM
> > To: ICOM Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [ICOM] IC-375
> > 
> > like I said, availablity or scarcity is not the only
> thing 
> > that determines price.
> > Market demand (or more recently)
> > consumer spending, is a better indicator.
> > A lot of folks list an item, and have
> > their friends bid it up.
> > Still, I would understand if it was a Collins with a 
> > legendary legacy of Apollo missions and such. My icom
> 970 , a 
> > radio with more widely used frequencies (at least some
> of 
> > maybe we'll keep) in the future, only gets like
> 1700.00 at 
> > hamfests with my original purchase of 3200! Seems that
> when I 
> > sell, I cant buy the same..
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "STeve Andre'"
> <andres at msu.edu>
> > To: <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ICOM] IC-375
> > 
> > 
> > > $1250 is not an unrealistic price for an
> excellent condition
> > > 375.  Few 375's and 1275's made; the 375
> had only two
> > > actual markets--the US and Canada so they really
> are rare.
> > >
> > > I don't think the US allocation of 220 is
> uncertain.  After
> > > the FCC got singed then they took the bottom 2MHz
> away
> > > from us, we got he upper 3MHz on a more secure
> footing.
> > >
> > > --STeve Andre'
> > > wb8wsf  en82
> > >
> > > On Thursday 13 November 2008 16:35:11
> mecker at peoplepc.com wrote:
> > >> thank you for this info. This means that
> > >> highly inflated prices, 1250.00 may be
> > >> a farce, a few isolated cases, possibly
> > >> even a scam, to sell this rig for that much.
> > >> I think it was initially because there werent
> > >> many ic-375s available, but after what you
> > >> just said, Im not sure I even want to buy
> > >> one let alone pay 1400.00 for an 15 percent
> > >> or more listing fee ebay sale.
> > >> I guess a 220FM mobile, like several
> currently
> > >> being made by other manufactuers eg: ALinco
> > >> , is well under 300.00 and very affordable,
> > >> not so bad to loose. -Marc KE2BP
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Adam Farson"
> <farson at shaw.ca>
> > >> To: "'ICOM Reflector'"
> <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:39 PM
> > >> Subject: RE: [ICOM] IC-375
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Mike,
> > >> >
> > >> > Hanging over all this is the uncertain
> allocation status 
> > of the 220 MHz
> > >> > band. This band does not enjoy the
> protection of an international
> > >> > allocation; it is footnoted in for ITU
> Region 2 only. 
> > The 220-222 MHz
> > >> > segment has already been reallocated;
> the rest of the 
> > band is probably 
> > >> > no
> > >> > less vulnerable. This is probably the
> reason why the 
> > amateur-equipment
> > >> > manufacturers are no longer supporting
> 220 MHz.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers for now, 73,
> > >> > Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC:
> icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> > > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> > > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/ 
> > 
> > ----
> > Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC:
> icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> > Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> > Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/
> 
> ----
> Your Moderator: Dick Flanagan K7VC:
> icom-owner at mailman.qth.net
> Icom Users Net: Sundays, 1700Z, 14.316 MHz
> Icom FAQ: http://www.qsl.net/icom/