[Milsurplus] History of Ham Mods: Opinions?

[Thomas Adams]

At 08:52 AM 6/15/2009, David Stinson wrote:
>Should a collector's guide to WWII radios, which emphasizes the 
>history of the equipment,
>include a section citing examples of exceptional ham radio mods?  On 
>one hand- it is a part of the history of these sets.  On the other; 
>such a citation might encourage
>further destruction of what are now historic pieces.
>Your Opinion?
>
>


First off...  I start to get uneasy whenever somebody starts talking 
about "Collector's Guides" for ANYTHING.

It tells me that the item in question is no longer appreciated for 
it's intrinsic value. A "Collector's Guide" is Step One in converting 
it into a commodity, traded in solely for an artificial, monetary value.

"Historic Pieces" is another warning flag that pops up, mainly used 
to justify and prop up the "necessity" of the Collector's Guide.

A BC-348 was intended to be used as the main long range liaison 
receiver aboard US multiengine aircraft; it's most famous for being 
used aboard the 8th and 15th Air Force's B-17s that pounded the Third 
Reich to rubble.

Now, 70 years later, some yahoo says that a pretty BC-348 that 
probably sat on some workbench at Fort Monmouth all through WW2 is a 
Holy Relic, and a piece with "historic significance"...  and 
therefore commands a selling price that is several times it's 
original government acquisition cost.

And that's where it's at, really...  nowadays, the biggest question 
is HOW MUCH CAN I GET FOR IT?

It has NOTHING to do with history or the significance of the role a 
particular item played in events.

These phony "historic value" fairy tales are EASY to start, in order 
to increase selling price. In fact, using this very internet posting 
I'M going to start one, RIGHT HERE AND NOW.


There's a thread going on right now about the BC-1031 panoramic 
adaptor. Did you know that there was a BC-1031 aboard the ENOLA GAY 
when she left Tinian, bound for Hiroshima?

It was there because it was necessary to know prior to the drop if 
Japanese radio or RADAR operations could interfere with the RADAR 
altitude trigger aboard "Little Boy"...   which was, believe it or 
not, a modified APS-13 "Tail End Charlie"  RADAR set, used in the 
P-51 Mustang to cover it's ass in the event that a 
Messerschmidt  slipped in behind without the pilot noticing.

Now that we know these facts about the BC-1031 and the APS-13, what's 
the effect? Does this bit of information make ALL BC-1031s and 
APS-13s MORE VALUABLE on the so-called "collector's market"...  just 
because a few similar sets played a significant role in the climactic 
mission of the Pacific war?

WHERE DID WE GET THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE MUSEUM CURATORS???


OK...   Off of my soap box.


As far as the eternal question of "Modify It" or "Run It Stock" is concerned...

I try to run WW2 surplus gear as Uncle Sam originally intended 
whenever possible, but when it's not economically reasonable, or when 
I can see improvements in performance as a possibility, there's 
nothing sacred about ANY chun of WW2 refuse...  it's getting modified.

If possible, I'll make the mods in a way that allows return to the 
original state...  but if I can't, then Tough Noogies.

If I owned the Mona Lisa and I thought she'd look better with a 
mustache,  then she'd get one!


Mr. T., W9LBB

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20080615/5407cfb0/attachment.htm