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

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:19:14 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]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 12:02 PM, Erik S. Klein wrote:

> 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

---

From: Robert Borsuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 11:31:19 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: "Glen S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Mar 12 15:34:00 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: "Bill Sudbrink" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:29:27 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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Erik S. Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Mark-8 Minicomputer Kit on E-bay
> 
> 
> 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: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:29:56 2003

Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:30:28 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: "Bill Sudbrink" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:30:47 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: Thu Mar 13 14:30:57 2003

>From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
> 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
able to find most of the TTL parts in 70's vintage.  So how 'new' is it?

---

From: "Erik S. Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:31:07 2003

> original?  

Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com

---

From: "Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:31:17 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: Thu Mar 13 14:31:27 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.

-- 

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: Bryan Blackburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu Mar 13 14:31:46 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