Subject: RE: Mark-8 Minicomputer Kit on E-bay

From: "Glen S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Mar 11 23:23:01 2003

That item went for $880.00.  Seems like a lot to spend.

>I contacted Stephen last night to see what he was up to.  As it turns
>out, the kit on eBay is one of his that the buyer probably gave up on or
>never had time for.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

---

From: "Chandra Bajpai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 06:08:01 2003

What was he selling these kits for originally? $200 max?
This is just a crazy price.  Now I wish I "invested" in these
kits...brings a better ROI than any of my stocks!

-Chandra

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Glen S
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Mark-8 Minicomputer Kit on E-bay

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 08:50:01 2003

> That item went for $880.00.  Seems like a lot to spend.

I'm betting that the high bidder didn't realize the kit was a modern
reproduction.

The same kit from Stephen will likely run half of the $880 or less.

Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com

---

From: "Bill Sudbrink" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 09:10:01 2003

It took a while for some guys on comp.os.cpm to catch on.
I lurk there now and then.  I was not sure whether they
were trolling or truly unaware that there were no original
kits, but then someone else clued them in.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Erik S. Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:45 AM

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 09:30:21 2003

>kits, but then someone else clued them in.

Yeah, I guess the only thing that could be original would be the bare
boards.  Everything else would just have to be contemporary materials,
at best.

I'm still guessing that the buyer expected to be purchasing an antique,
not a recent creation.

Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com

---

From: Mike <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:05:00 2003

> I'm still guessing that the buyer expected to be purchasing an antique,

I asked about  the kit and the owner did say that it was a new one he had 
purchased.  I guess that not every one asks about the product they are 
buying.  I was expecting the owner to add a note to the ad mentioning that it 
was a 'NEW' kit.

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:13:01 2003

I've seen a couple of Stephen's reproductions re-sold on ebay without 
the proper notice of "reproduction". Last year a completed one sold for 
$3303.10 on ebay, and the seller deliberately hid the fact that it was a 
reproduction. He also sold it under a private auction so it would be 
impossible to email the bidders and let them know. I know this because I 
emailed the seller, and never received a reply, and then I emailed ebay. 
They replyed to me, but simply forwarded my emails to the seller and 
told me, in so many words, that they didn't care and had no intention of 
forwarding my email to the bidders.

-Bryan

---

From: "Bill Sudbrink" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:26:00 2003

I was under the impression (based on previous classiccmp discussions) that
the only way to get the bare boards was to use the plans supplied in
<whichever magazine it was> to etch your own.  So how would you define
original?  Etched from the plans or etched from the plans within some
short period of time from the publication date?  Or maybe etched from the
plans using materials produced at the time of publication?  I have a couple
of really old Radio Shack board etching kits around somewhere.  I'm sure
that I bought them before 1980.  Could I turn them into gold by using them
to etch a couple of Mark-8 boards? ;-) (smiley for the humor impared)

> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:26 AM

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:30:01 2003

>From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>

It's a little hard to quantify 'NEW' for these Mark-8's... while the boards
were made
recently, they were made from the original published patterns, and are not
plated-through or otherwise 'newer' than the originals except in the age of
the raw materials.  The Radio-Electronics articles have all the layouts, and
some
number of Mark-8's were home etched, or even wire-wrapped, so it's not like
there's One True Source. When I built mine (from Steve Gabaly's boards), I
was
able to find most of the TTL parts in 70's vintage.  So how 'new' is it?

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:33:01 2003

> I'm still guessing that the buyer expected to be purchasing an antique,

At $880 I would *hope* I was buying an original.  That is just scathingly
obscene for a modern day replica kit.

-- 

Sellam Ismail                                        Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger                http://www.vintage.org

 * Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 10:34:00 2003

> buying.  I was expecting the owner to add a note to the ad mentioning that it

It would have been the ethical thing to do but that's for the buyer to
deal with now.

--

---

From: ben franchuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:03:00 2003

> obscene for a modern day replica kit.

Well if you don't reasearch what you collect that is your problem.
While most things go for dirt cheap consider the value if any old
computer equipment if you had to build it again.Look at the univac
for sale on ebay ...  More than most people can afford yes, less
than the cost to rebuild yes as well.
Ben.

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:07:00 2003

> original?  

In 1974 you could order the "kit" from Radio Electronics (actually from
Jon Titus) which consisted of the bare boards, a parts list and some
brief instructions on how to turn it all into a computer.  The article
in RE was descriptive but not enough so that you could build a computer
from that and the board layouts.

A machine built using those original boards would be "original" and one
built using the identical, but newer, reproduction boards is not
original (although it would be just as much fun).  Anyone selling the
latter as the former is perpetrating a fraud.

Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com

---

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:07:30 2003

If it's not "old" then it's "new."  Any spinning to try and make something
seem old, when all the parts were recently made is deceptive, unless it is
made crystal clear that this is just a remanufacture of an old design.

Clearly, some of the parts have not been manufactured in some time, so
those parts by definition are old.  However, any attempt (or missing
description) that fails to describe the reality of this kit, is still
deception, in my opinion.

>> I asked about  the kit and the owner did say that it was a new one he
>> had purchased.  I guess that not every one asks about the product they
>> are buying.  I was expecting the owner to add a note to the ad
>> mentioning that
> it
>> was a 'NEW' kit.
>
> It's a little hard to quantify 'NEW' for these Mark-8's... while the
> boards were made
> recently, they were made from the original published patterns, and are
> not plated-through or otherwise 'newer' than the originals except in the
> age of the raw materials.  The Radio-Electronics articles have all the
> layouts, and some
> number of Mark-8's were home etched, or even wire-wrapped, so it's not
> like there's One True Source. When I built mine (from Steve Gabaly's
> boards), I was

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:13:01 2003

> to etch a couple of Mark-8 boards? ;-) (smiley for the humor impared)

If the boards were etched within the timeframe of the original article,
say anywhere between July 1974 and July 1975 (to be generous) then I would
consider that "original".  Also, if it was a completed machine that was
built in a similar timeframe, I would consider that original.

I would not consider boards that were recently fabricated and then put
together with other recently fabricated components to be "original" in the
context of the time that has passed from 1974 until now.

It's a tricky issue to be sure, but the fact is there is a major
difference between a kit that was produced at the time the article
originally appeared, perhaps by Jon Titus himself, and a kit assembled
from parts that were recently (i.e. nearly 30 years later) manufactured.

The materials and components that were available in 1974 are different
than those available today.  The PCB is different, the etching process
(unless you have an old etching kit) is different, and the date codes will
be modern, unless you take the time to seek out chips from that era.

Even if you were to use an old etching kit, find chips with era
appropriate date codes (i.e. no later than 7526), and find all the other
components that would have been appropriate for that period (or were in
fact made in that period) you are still assembling a modern replica and
it should be amply noted as such if you are selling it.

To not mention it is unethical, and to go to lengths to hide it is
outright fraud.

--

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:14:00 2003

Nope. Board sets were available for order through Techniques, authorized 
by Jon Titus. If I made an Apple 1 from original plans, could I sell it 
as original without eventually spending time in court? Of course not. 
"But" you say, "The Apple 1 was sold as a completed product!" So? What 
are you paying for? Old parts? I have all the old parts I need to make 
an Apple 1. Is it the board? What if I had an unpopulated board I made 
myself in the seventies? Or is it age of the solder, or the date that it 
was assembled? I say it is all of the above. I also think that original 
boards from the authorized source account for much more than anything 
else, since the board sets were really the only thing authorized for 
production. I would be very unhappy if I bought an Apple 1 for more than 
the cost of making one today, and found out after the fact that it was a 
replica.

-Bryan

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:19:01 2003

So 25 year old PCB's make something "original"?  Your definition and 
mine are really different then.  If it's built according to the plans 
then it's original. Period. If you through a GAL on there and a couple 
6116's then no - not original

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:31:00 2003

Guys, this is turning into another George Bush political thread.  If 
the buyer and seller are happy. Then be happy too.

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

ps. I got Mark 8 plans from Jon Titus and I've been collecting parts to 
build my own.  I will consider mine "original" if I can do it finding 
all the old parts listed on the schematic.  If I have to replace some 
of them then I will note the changes.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

> Nope. Board sets were available for order through Techniques, 
> authorized by Jon Titus. If I made an Apple 1 from original plans, 
> could I sell it as original without eventually spending time in court? 
> Of course not. "But" you say, "The Apple 1 was sold as a completed 
> product!" So? What are you paying for? Old parts? I have all the old 
> parts I need to make an Apple 1. Is it the board? What if I had an 
> unpopulated board I made myself in the seventies? Or is it age of the 
> solder, or the date that it was assembled? I say it is all of the 
> above. I also think that original boards from the authorized source 
> account for much more than anything else, since the board sets were 
> really the only thing authorized for production. I would be very 
> unhappy if I bought an Apple 1 for more than the cost of making one 
> today, and found out after the fact that it was a replica.
>
> -Bryan

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:33:00 2003

Then why do you waste time collecting old computers? In many cases, it 
would cost less to build everything "original" today. An original Silver 
Ghost Rolls Royce, the most valuable collector car in existance at $50 
million, could easily be built today from the original plans, by hand 
just as the original, for about $50,000. How much would you give me? 
I'll get started today if you say $49 million. ;-)

-Bryan

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:38:14 2003

You are free to "consider" it an original, but if you sell it as such, 
you are being dishonest

-Bryan

>
> ps. I got Mark 8 plans from Jon Titus and I've been collecting parts 
> to build my own.  I will consider mine "original" if I can do it 
> finding all the old parts listed on the schematic.  If I have to 
> replace some of them then I will note the changes.

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:40:01 2003

I've seen George's. It's a replica.

-Bryan

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:44:00 2003

I'm sorry. I knew this would start something. Just because something 
can be built cheaper doesn't mean I have the time to do it.  I can 
build a Mark - 8 easier then a Rolls Royce.

Again, sorry I said anything
Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Bryan Blackburn wrote:

> would cost less to build everything "original" today. An original 
> Silver Ghost Rolls Royce, the most valuable collector car in existance 
> at $50 million, could easily be built today from the original plans, 
> by hand just as the original, for about $50,000. How much would you 
> give me? I'll get started today if you say $49 million. ;-)
>
> -Bryan
>
>> then it's original. Period. If you through a GAL on there and a 
>> couple 6116's then no - not original

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:47:00 2003

Please stop. I don't need a morality lesson from anyone.

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:49:00 2003

> If it's built according to the plans then it's original. Period.

NO!  It's nonsense!

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:50:01 2003

lol. That's good. But he made it with original parts. ;)

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

---

From: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:51:01 2003

All in fun, my friend, no offense taken or intended. I am just 
suggesting that "original" implies something different than something 
identical but recent. (For a few million bucks, building a Rolls Royce 
gets easier!)

-Bryan

---

From: Kevin Handy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:52:00 2003

> 6116's then no - not original
So, you believe that a reproduction of the Mona Lisa made recently
should be worth the same as the original.  Great, I'll have someone whip
up one tomorrow and you can pay me for it what the original is worth.

Maybe I'll make a couple hundred. That should make me a billionaire
fairly quickly.

---

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:52:12 2003

However, Al Gore's is original, since he invented it.

---

From: ben franchuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:59:00 2003

Robert Borsuk wrote:
> I'm sorry. I knew this would start something. Just because something can 
> be built cheaper doesn't mean I have the time to do it.  I can build a 
> Mark - 8 easier then a Rolls Royce.

I would say the Royce is easier ... you can't make a 8008 chip from scratch.
Ben.

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:03:00 2003

Really when you think about it. There really is only one original 
Mark-8. The one done by Jon himself.  Since they never were produced 
and were only sold as a set of plans.

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

ps. No offence taken. It's interesting to see the different opinions
pss. Al finished the Mark-8 then turned to the internet

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:06:00 2003

Again. Sorry I brought this up. This is apples to oranges.

Rob Borsuk
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:33:01 2003

> up one tomorrow and you can pay me for it what the original is worth.

There's a big difference between a unique work of art and an instance of a
construction of a published design.

Clearly for _anything_ collectible there's a scale of valuation based on
age, 'low serial number', 'made by original inventor', condition,
completeness, whether repairs have been made to it, etc., etc.

All this arguing about imprecise, unquantifiable terms like 'original' and
'new' doesn't solve anything.

The only thing that seems to be in general agreement is that the seller
(probably) intentionally omitted information that might have lowered the
final sales price.  Which is something the Romans (well, Latin anyway) had a
phrase for a long time ago...

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:52:00 2003

> than the cost to rebuild yes as well.

Point taken but even if you were to build a Mark-1 you'd really only need
the original issues of Radio-Electronics.  You can get those for under
$200 on eBay or free if you find someone willing to scan the pages.  With
the exception of the 8008, the rest is trivial.

--

---

From: ben franchuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:53:00 2003

> phrase for a long time ago...
Since the phrase is in Latin would not that have made it more valuable.
Wow Latin it can't read it but it must be the real thing. Just like 
movie dates in roman numerals -- you can't tell quickly how old they are.
Ben
PS. Yes you can proto-type chips but it is not cheap. A ballpark
figure is about $500 to $1000 each.  http://www.mosis.com/

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 12:59:00 2003

> 6116's then no - not original

Ok, then we have two definitions: "Original (according to plan)" and
"Original".

"Original (according to plan)" means it could have been made at any time
with any parts as long as those parts are what were called for in the
original plan.

"Original" means sensitive to seminal date of manufacture.

"Original (according to plan)" != "Original"

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 13:01:00 2003

> of them then I will note the changes.

I wouldn't consider it "original" because it is missing one crucial
element: this is not 1974.

But that doesn't matter.  Have fun making it because that's all that
counts.

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 13:02:01 2003

> I've seen George's. It's a replica.

And he confused an 8080 with the 8008 but is trying to convince the world
that it will work.

--

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 13:08:00 2003

> and were only sold as a set of plans.

I think you're now being too strict with the term "original" whereas
before you were being too loose.

The problem is, there is disagreement on the definition of "original".

--

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 13:21:00 2003

> figure is about $500 to $1000 each.  http://www.mosis.com/

Hmm... my first thought was for bus driver/receiver chips from the
OMNIBUS days (DEC 8881 and friends), but after a little reflection,
I doubt the current fab processes would easily approximate the
characteristics of those ancient chips we'd be trying to reproduce.

The only thing in favor of such an endeavour is that the tolerances
30 years ago were so sloppy compared to today that it wouldn't be
impossible to get something that behaved well enough, but didn't
depend on some of the manufacturing specifics.

-ethan

---

From: ben franchuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 13:22:00 2003

> element: this is not 1974.

So you are a little slow in finishing huh. :)
Lets say I homebrewed a computer using a 8008 rather than the Mark-8,
in 1975, and put it on e-bay today. Just because it is not as well
know as the Mark 8 , does this make it less of a collectors item
since it too is a 'original item'?
Ben.
PS. Don't  worry I am still designing my XT killer PC from TTL,
so maybie my 12/24 bit cpu will not be ready in 1983 ... umm 2003
instead. Note a TTL computer could still have been designed and marketed
in the 1980's since memory still was the largest price in a computer
system.
ALSO lets not talk about GEORGE, I am tired all this beating around the 
Bush.!!

---

From: Dan Veeneman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 14:34:00 2003

>the exception of the 8008, the rest is trivial.

I have the original Radio-Electronics issue (July 1974) with the Mark-8
article by Jonathan A. Titus.  I'll be happy to sell it someone for $200.

The article itself is only five pages.  Readers were asked to send $5
plus postage to R-E in New York to receive a 52-page package of
"complete construction details, more data on how it works, a group
of eight experiments you can perform with the computer and other
important information."

Jon Titus' article goes on to describe the six different modules
(Main CPU, Memory Address, Input Mux, Memory, Output and Readout)
and an interface to the TV Typewriter (from R-E, September 1973).
It also provides a parts list, power requirements (+5 VDC at 3 amps
and -9 VDC at 1.5 amps), and a software example.

It's all interesting reading and goes in to a fair amount of detail,
but construction would require the 52-page plans, not just the
R-E article.

As a point of reference, the parts list indicates that a complete set of
circuit boards were available from "Techniques, Inc." of Englewood,
New Jersey, for $47.50.

Regarding the 8008 microprocessor, the article has a footnote:

For more detailed data on the Microprocessor IC write to
Intel Corp., 3065 Bowers Ave., Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 - ask for a
copy of "8008, 8-Bit Parallel Central Processor Unit-Users Manual."
This manual was offered free at the time this article went to press.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Dan
www.decodesystems.com/wanted.html

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 14:50:00 2003

> since it too is a 'original item'?

It is certainly worth preserving/collecting.  But yes, since it doesn't
have the "Mark-8" name then it probably wouldn't fetch as much in dollars.
It might not even get as much attention.

But historically, it is worth every bit as much as a Mark-8 (if not more).

--

---

From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 14:51:00 2003

> ALSO lets not talk about GEORGE, I am tired all this beating around the 

SCROTUS has ruled to prohibit any further investigation of whether his is
real.

But Clinton will show his to anybody.

Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon denied that his was a fake.

Ford dropped his and broke it.

Quayle never did figure out how to use it.

Jimmy Carter lusted after one in his heart.

---

From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 14:55:01 2003

People.

Back to old 'puters, please.

Now.

Thanks.

--fred

---

From: "Heinz Wolter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 17:16:00 2003

From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <[email-masked]>

> the exception of the 8008, the rest is trivial.

wrong.
the original magazine articles and pcb patterns contained several mistakes.
Parts?- not quite so trivial to find. 8008's go on ebay often - but do they
work?
Though you might salvage a plastic 8008 from an 11/34 or pdp8a (??)
keyboard console, the signetics 8267 and 8263 parts might not be that easy
to
come by. 1101 srams will also be a bit diffcult to find. the rest of the
jellybean
logic may be found by scrounging old boards, but forget Digikey and the
like.

I bought a basic kit- thankfully, the hard to get parts were provided, as
well as scans
of the mag articles including the corrections, and Mark-8 users group
newsletters.
If someone is interested in building boards or wirewrapping- feel free to
contact
me - perhaps we can put the files up somewhere. But for me, it was well
worth
my time and money to get the "modern" kit and not dick around looking for
parts.
Having paid less than 200$ for the basic kit incl pcbs and core chips, this
makes much
more sense to me than paying 200$ for magazines only. If you were building a
totally
modern work alike - an all fpga solution - cpu+rom+ram would be more
interesting
than yet another 8008 using LS/HC TTL and CMOS static rams. 8008 on a PLD
anyone?
H

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 17:52:00 2003

>From: "Heinz Wolter" <[email-masked]>

'New' and working 8008's are not that hard to come by.  I recently bought 15
of them for a project (http://www.jkearney.com/tiny8demo/) and could get
more if necessary.  Not cheap, though.

> If you were building a totally modern work alike - an all fpga solution -
cpu+rom+ram
> would be more interesting than yet another 8008 using LS/HC TTL and CMOS
static rams.
> 8008 on a PLD anyone?

This would be a fun project.  I did a design (but haven't built) of a Mark-8
using an FPGA and an 8008.  The 8008 could be omitted and implemented in the
FPGA, but I think it's fun to use the actual old processors:
http://www.jkearney.com/8008/uMark8.htm

Jim

---

From: ben franchuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 18:08:19 2003

> http://www.jkearney.com/8008/uMark8.htm

Nice design , too bad the schematic is not PDF.
I still would like to know how you debounce the
front pannel.This looks to the best of both worlds
as a DUD 8008 could even be used and it would still work.

Ben.

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 18:28:17 2003

>From: "ben franchuk" <[email-masked]>
> front pannel.

Look at the VHDL file debounce.vhd.  It is a simple but effective digital
debouncer.

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 20:06:01 2003

> Look at the VHDL file debounce.vhd.  It is a simple but effective digital

p.s. check out this Maxim appnote:
http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/287/ln/en

It's an implementation of the same idea.

---

From: "Hans Franke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 03:28:00 2003

> since it too is a 'original item'?

This is one if the mysteries of the classic computer market.
In my eyes, such a computer would even be more valueable than
a Mark-8, since it shows some of the open ends of evolution.

The hype about names has often be an issue on the list, though
I still miss a satisfying conclusion. One of the KIMs I own is
eventualy the best example. It's serial numer 0001, which makes
it, by any mean, THE first 6502 computer at all, and probably
the first 6502 CPU - as far as this can go. Most definitly, this
baby might fetch a god pirce (that is _IF_ i would ever sell it),
still I doubt that it will go over what an Apple 1 can make.

Even considering the outstanding historic relevance (beside that
to me a KIM is still way more cool than an Apple), and that even
KIMs get to be somewhat higher prices, the whole thing is in no
way understandable.

My only conclusion is that people pay for hyped up names (see
the ridiculous for turnkey IMSAI/Altairs), and not historic
value - they just belive that the hype has so real background.

> ALSO lets not talk about GEORGE, I am tired all this beating around the 

I guess that's the problem... Nobody tries to beat him personaly ...
SCNR

Gruss
H.

--
VCF Europa 4.0 am 03./04. Mai 2003 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 10:48:00 2003

> > Though you might salvage a plastic 8008 from an 11/34 or pdp8a (??)

I have a ceramic 8008 on an 11/34 console board sitting in a pile.  I
could certainly borrow it for this application.  I've been thinking of
a Mark-8, but I will probably never have enough time to build an original.
This one (or the uMark8) sounds feasible.
 
> 'New' and working 8008's are not that hard to come by.  I recently bought
> 15 of them for a project (http://www.jkearney.com/tiny8demo/) and could
> get more if necessary.  Not cheap, though.

How much is "not cheap"?  $50?  More?

Would you consider a group buy of the Tiny-8 design?  I doubt I'd want to
build one at prototype-PCB costs.

-ethan

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 11:33:01 2003

> KIMs get to be somewhat higher prices, the whole thing is in no

The Apple-1 had built-in video.  Only 200 were made.  Probably less than
50 still exist.  It also represents the start of the Apple Computer
Company (now Apple Computer Inc.)

The KIM-1 was just a single board trainer.  Perhaps thousands were made.
At least hundreds still exist.  Commodore is dead :)

But Hans, I don't mean to rain on your parade.  Your KIM-1 is truly rare
and unique and incredibly historical given all that you mentioned.  And
you can't tell me the offer you received at VCF 5.0 didn't approach what
a bare Apple-1 would sell for ;)

> value - they just belive that the hype has so real background.

And your point is? :)  This has been the way of things for a long time.  I
call it the "Beanie Baby" or "Collect all 4!" mentality.  They aren't
collecting for actual relevance, but only for what they see others
collecting and the hype surrounding it.

> I guess that's the problem... Nobody tries to beat him personaly ...

I know how to solve the Federal deficit.  Sell tickets good for giving a
personal beating to the Bush.  You'll have a line of people wrapped around
Washington waiting for their turn.

--

---

From: "Jim Kearney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 11:53:00 2003

>Ethan Dicks wrote:

The last quote I had (a few months ago) was $40 ea for NOS C8008's in 20
qty.

> Would you consider a group buy of the Tiny-8 design?  I doubt I'd
> want to build one at prototype-PCB costs.

Sure, and since the fab still has the masks etc. saved (I hope), there would
be no NRE, so they would only cost around $15 each in qty 20.  I also have a
stock of most of the parts with datecodes <= 1980.

What happened last time was that I sold one on eBay and got a number of
private orders in addition due to the auction's advertising effect.

Jim

---

From: "Hans Franke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 12:00:01 2003

> At least hundreds still exist.  Commodore is dead :)

Who cares about Commodore (*ups - duck and cover*),
real KIMS where made by MOS!

> a bare Apple-1 would sell for ;)

It was only 62% of the last A1 you sold ... and even less
considering prior sales.

> collecting and the hype surrounding it.

Shure, but that stuff is by any mean wothless anyway, so the
value is strict hype, while classiccomps have at least a 
historc value.

Gruss
H.