In article ,
(AComarow) writes:

Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for setting me straight on the Hammarlunds, although I'd still bet the
company didn't sell many 105TRs.

As for the RME-6900 vs. a 75A-4, no fair. Not even close, nor did it pretend to
be. It was in the price class of an HQ-170. It lacked mechanical filters (among
other 75A-4 features) and certainly wasn't overbuilt like the A-4. It was more
comparable to a 75S-3, and even then there was really not much of a contest. I
sold mine because I had an HQ-170A that I preferred because of the slot filter,
audio performance, and flexibility. But one of the things I liked about the RME
was its one knob, one function design, with nice big knobs. I'm not much on
multifunction controls. I keep forgetting how to access the secondary and
tertiary functions and even what they are.

Avery W3AVE

On Thu, 1 Jan 1970 00:59:59, Biz WD=?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=HCO
wrote:


WOW - well never seen a picture of one but heard of them from some RME
Collectors here in Dallas. Kinda collectable since it was the last gasp of
RME. There is a small group here that collects the last tube rigs of dying
companies from the 50's 60's and 70's.

Interesting concept since back then most would do anything they could to
save their companies and some of these "desperation" rigs reflect that.

RME collectors? Collectors who specialize in the last tube rigs
of dying companies?

I'm trying to figure out why "common" tube transceivers go for a
song and a half dozen small hunks of roughly machined brass and
steel go for a hundred bucks or more. Why do J-38's cost more
than some Vibroplex keys?

Why do "catalin" radios sell for thousands of dollars, more than a
KWM-2?




ckh wrote:

Why do "catalin" radios sell for thousands of dollars, more than a
KWM-2?

Catalin radios have nothing to do with radios. They have become an
"investment vehicle" and more often than not are changing hands amongst
those that only have a passing interest in old radios.

-BM

RME collectors? Collectors who specialize in the last tube rigs
of dying companies?


You name it people collect it ....like the Bible says ...call no man a fool
or something to that effect.


I'm trying to figure out why "common" tube transceivers go for a
song and a half dozen small hunks of roughly machined brass and
steel go for a hundred bucks or more. Why do J-38's cost more
than some Vibroplex keys?


Supply and demand .... also one can store many more keys than rigs. My wife
is always on me with the "you don't use it so get rid of it lecture". I
shake my head at some of the "key crap" and prices on e-Bay.


Why do "catalin" radios sell for thousands of dollars, more than a
KWM-2?

Why do guys put up with owning any number of sports cars from the 50s and
60s with their inherent problems when they could get a Miata and be trouble
free? People like to tinker and this is certainly is a tinkerer's
hobby-endeavor-service.

73 God Bless Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa

garigue posted:
Why do guys put up with owning any number of sports cars from the 50s and
60s with their inherent problems when they could get a Miata and be trouble
free?

silly question!

One should own all of them:
1950 MGTD
1976 MGB
1978 MGB
1999 Miata (British Racing Green)
Old Hallicrafters
Old Lafeyettes
Old Nationals

Don

On Sun, 30 Nov 3903 19:22:21, "garigue" wrote:



RME collectors? Collectors who specialize in the last tube rigs
of dying companies?


You name it people collect it ....like the Bible says ...call no man a fool
or something to that effect.


I'm trying to figure out why "common" tube transceivers go for a
song and a half dozen small hunks of roughly machined brass and
steel go for a hundred bucks or more. Why do J-38's cost more
than some Vibroplex keys?


Supply and demand .... also one can store many more keys than rigs. My wife
is always on me with the "you don't use it so get rid of it lecture". I
shake my head at some of the "key crap" and prices on e-Bay.

OK but this doesn't explain why a J-38, which must exist in the
hundreds of thousands is worth about as much as the more common
Vibroplex. I have a "Champion" which isn't any great machine
either.

Why do "catalin" radios sell for thousands of dollars, more than a
KWM-2?

Why do guys put up with owning any number of sports cars from the 50s and
60s with their inherent problems when they could get a Miata and be trouble
free? People like to tinker and this is certainly is a tinkerer's
hobby-endeavor-service.

I think the other fellow nailed the "catalin" issue. It's not a
radio, it's an investment.

I do understand the psychological value of a vintage-rig. I'm
restoring a couple myself. I simply do not understand the price
progression.

I was licensed in 1963. Here are my recollections of prices:
about
1963 Now Mult

J-38 a buck or two. 50 50
Vibroplex $25? 100 4
KWM-2 $1,100 1,100 1
Corvette $4,500 45,000 10
Pepsi .10 1.50 15
Drake 2B,2BQ 350 200 .6

I'll bet that most radios are running less that 1X

I guess that falacy in my reasoning is in thinking that all Drake,
Hallicrafters, Hammarlunds, etc. will track the collectable curve
and not go the way of a Chevy Biscayne 4 door.

de ah6gi/4






73 God Bless Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa





It should be interesting to see how long it will take the seller to
correct
his listing. I am sure the
anal Collins-purists will be bombarding the poor SOB with a flood of
complaints.

A seller cannot correct a listing after there are bids - he can only
add to it, and the seller of that radio has done that. Too bad he didn't
do his homework FIRST and at least read the darn model number off
the bottom!

GS

(AComarow) wrote in message ...
Hammarlund's HQ-215 or -205 (I don't recall the exact model
number) comes to mind--a nondescript receiver coupled with a CB transmitter.

HQ-105TR - it was an HQ-100 with a one-tube one-channel 5 watt 10 or 11 meter
rig inside (used the rx audio system for the modulator). Circa 1958 - not a
desperation move by Hammarlund, just a marketing attempt.

The HQ-215 (1968 or so) was meant to be a solid-state top-end rx. It used the
same het scheme as the Collins S-line and it could (in theory, anyway)
transceive with a 32S-3. But I doubt many Collins fans wanted one!

But the RME 6900 was a very good radio, at least in my opinion. It performed
well and looked pretty neat, and was priced well below the top of
hamband-only
receivers.

How did it compare with, say, a 75A-4?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for setting me straight on the Hammarlunds, although I'd still bet the
company didn't sell many 105TRs.

Agreed! The HQ-100 had a lot of compromises - not even a separate BFO!
The -100A was an improvement.

As for the RME-6900 vs. a 75A-4, no fair. Not even close, nor did it pretend
to be. It was in the price class of an HQ-170. It lacked mechanical filters
(among
other 75A-4 features) and certainly wasn't overbuilt like the A-4. It was more
comparable to a 75S-3, and even then there was really not much of a contest. I
sold mine because I had an HQ-170A that I preferred because of the slot filter,
audio performance, and flexibility.

All that makes sense. Probably why '170s are so much more common than
'6900s.

But one of the things I liked about the RME
was its one knob, one function design, with nice big knobs.

YES!

This is one feature that I always admired in the Collins 75A series.
Big, serious controls, nothing tiny or dainty.

I'm not much on
multifunction controls. I keep forgetting how to access the secondary and
tertiary functions and even what they are.

I agree 100%. I have incorporated that philosophy in all my homebrew
rigs, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dbowey" wrote in message
...
garigue posted:
Why do guys put up with owning any number of sports cars from the 50s
and
60s with their inherent problems when they could get a Miata and be
trouble
free?

silly question!

One should own all of them:
1950 MGTD
1976 MGB
1978 MGB
1999 Miata (British Racing Green)
Old Hallicrafters
Old Lafeyettes
Old Nationals

Don

Right on Don ....but my wife would have had me in the shed years ago ...73
Tom KI3R

ps I think I have the record for the shortest owned Miata of any one
.....bought a 90 and was in the office when there was a terrible ka-boom
.....a minute later the lot boy came in and reported that he was hit and run
as he pulled out to the back of the dealership for the delivery wash. I
immediately declined the auto but was offered a 91 which just came in at the
same price which I still have.

again 73 Tom KI3R