






no problem... these were posted about a year ago when it seemed easier to just use the outside host... I had no idea that if you failed to log in regularly to photobucket, they stopped allowing your photos to appear from previous posts. no matter, for the past few months, I've been trying to just post photos directly to the forum.phonophan79 wrote:Brian - could you please upload these photos directly to the forum?
Since $275 in 1926 equates to three or four thousand in today's money, I'm not sure that someone needed to be hyper wealthy, just comfortably well off. I have plenty of friends who've spent that much on their computers and televisions, and I wouldn't consider them hyper wealthy.brianu wrote:...whatever robber baron, industrialist, or hyper-wealthy bastard could have afforded this $275 machine in 1926... only about 3000 produced... sadly, unlike the credenza, only has a two-spring motor... but plays long enough on a full wind, and wow, what a sound...
hmm... I really don't know many if any people who've ever spent three or four thousand on a tv or computer. also, so far as translating currency of the 20s into today's money, there are more than a few ways to do so that take into consideration - or ignore - various factors, and the differences in the resulting comparisons can be pretty dramatic. check:bbphonoguy wrote: Since $275 in 1926 equates to three or four thousand in today's money, I'm not sure that someone needed to be hyper wealthy, just comfortably well off. I have plenty of friends who've spent that much on their computers and televisions, and I wouldn't consider them hyper wealthy.
Not being acquainted with the parentage of any of the original purchasers of these machines I wouldn't know if any of them were bastards or not.
Great machine though. Would love to have one.
I knew you weren't being literal with the use of the word "bastard". Taking it seriously was a weak attempt at giving a humorous response. Guess it didn't work.brianu wrote:hmm... I really don't know many if any people who've ever spent three or four thousand on a tv or computer. also, so far as translating currency of the 20s into today's money, there are more than a few ways to do so that take into consideration - or ignore - various factors, and the differences in the resulting comparisons can be pretty dramatic. check:bbphonoguy wrote: Since $275 in 1926 equates to three or four thousand in today's money, I'm not sure that someone needed to be hyper wealthy, just comfortably well off. I have plenty of friends who've spent that much on their computers and televisions, and I wouldn't consider them hyper wealthy.
Not being acquainted with the parentage of any of the original purchasers of these machines I wouldn't know if any of them were bastards or not.
Great machine though. Would love to have one.
http://eh.net/hmit/
beyond that, hyper was merely a qualifier. exclude it if it makes you happy and just say wealthy - either way, I don't think anyone but for those really at the top of the income scale in the mid to late 20s could have afforded a record player priced at close to $300. and bastards, well that was just a figure of speech rather than a literal reference to the fatherless, but I'm figuring you knew that.
Let me say this about that....Lenoirstreetguy wrote:And for that much money you got virtually no record storage space. I don't think they were ever listed in the Canadian catalogue, but I have seen one up here...and of course it had the bottom portion of the legs cut off so it sat low and looked rather like a cedar chest with a crank.
Jim