[ICOM] IC-375

Fri Nov 14 01:15:32 EST 2008

assuming, of course, we'll be able to use those
frequencies as well as 1.2, 440 and 144
-Marc, KE2BP

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg at yahoo.com>
To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: [ICOM] IC-375


> 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/
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/