HP Forums

Full Version: How about an HP65 for $651? :-)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Link to $651 bid on HP65!

Ok, I promise I won't post many of these. :-) But this is one of the highest bids I've ever seen for an HP65. Granted, it looks fantastic! but wow!

What I wonder about is why people use such ridiculously large type. Does that make the item better? :-) It looks like the label has not been peeled back. If that is the case, the reader is most certainly about to fail, if it's not already deteriorating. Wonder if it has one of those repro labels?

I would question how long that will continue to run, if the card reader hasn't been repaired.

BTW, I've sold Mint 65 for more than that. I think the most I have seen them sell for was around $1500.

Edited: 22 May 2006, 5:32 p.m.

Is there any way to make good copies of back labels?
That would certainly come handy for these HP 67.

There are already people making "fake" labels. I'll post a couple of photos. I had someone ask me to look at them once. I don't like "fakes" but I'll post what two look like.

My opinion is that Reproduction labels should say "Reproduction".
The only reason not to put that on a label is to deceive. I started a post a few years ago that showed differences between fake and real. Someone on this forum even was making them. Don't know if they still are.


Edited: 22 May 2006, 7:49 p.m.

Yes, we remember this B.O.

It reminds me this story. I once had an HP10 that was working perfectly and then stopped working at once. It was cosmetically pristine, and had a Dutch back label. This is rare enough to be mentionned.

I posted a repair service wanted ad and was answered by someone who said he could repair it for me. I sent him this HP10 and a defective 67 that I offered him as he did not want to be compensated.

After several weeks, the calculator was returned non working, the person acknowledging that there was nothing to do. I sold it non working. The buyer informed me to my greatest surprise that though advertised as cosmetically pristine, the label was fake. The label was an English one though it was originally a Dutch one for sure. I never drew any conclusion on that matter.


Edited: 23 May 2006, 6:42 a.m.

Is this made on paper or any other material?

Although I can clearly see the printing banding, I'm surprised of how good the silver colour looks.

Sincerely to my as long as it looks perfect I don't have any problem in having a new fake instead of a peeled original in my HP-35

It is a metalic material. Thicker than the original with sticky back. These two were made by someone from Malaysia and were sent to me, unsolicited, to see what I thought of them.

The problem with fake labels is that while the current owner might not care, if he sells it, the future owners will pass them off as original (or might not even know). Fake labels pollute the market, in my opinion.. If someone truely doesn't care if it's fake, then they should have absolutely no problem with it saying "Reproduction". Like I said, the only point in leaving off "Reproduction" is to deceive.

Edited: 23 May 2006, 10:02 a.m.

Still under the original selling price of about $800. What is really ridiculous to me is when someone pays more than the new price for a calculator. My reasoning is that if you like it why didn't you buy it then?

Quote:
Still under the original selling price of about $800. What is really ridiculous to me is when someone pays more than the new price for a calculator. My reasoning is that if you like it why didn't you buy it then?
How do you know they didn't? I have bought most of HPs Calculators since they started making them. I sold my old ones to buy the newer ones. Only years later did I decide to start collecting them.

Collectibility items are almosts always worth more than the original price. Have you ever priced a 1953 Corvette? The original selling price was $3500.00

Edited: 23 May 2006, 11:14 a.m.

Hello Mike,

I think there are 2 differnt approaches. A fake label as such should nit be a problem. I mean, suppose my wife gets a new hip, I still love here and maybe is even worth more for I can do things I could not do together before.

What is wrong is not mentioning it. And as shown here before, you do not always know or do not recognize. It take a reproduction to know a reproduction. Actually theh quality is amazingly well given the details and prize asked for these labels some time ago.
It is up to the collector to have a non working HP65 with a sticky rubber thing in the reader and maybe a not always first time working on/off switch or have a ful working nice looking machine with a "fake" label. I thinkk there is even an argue that the price should not be that different. Take for example fqamous paintings who are restored, scratche repaired and showing full brightness etc again and still selling more than the non-restore price.

My point of view:
Use a "fake label" but mark it as such and stock the original label in case you want to change it back again or that a future seller wants to restore it back. In other words be honest on the change and do not throw away the replaced items.

Br.
Ronald

Quote:
Take for example fqamous paintings who are restored, scratche repaired and showing full brightness etc again and still selling more than the non-restore price.
But a fake Mona Lisa doesn't sell as much as a real Mona Lisa. AND, if you sell a "fake" as authentic, you have committed fraud.

My beef about not having "Reproduction" on a fake, is that anyone that doesn't care if they have a fake, shouldn't care if it has "Reproduction" on it. And 99.99% of all collectible calculators have been owned by someone else. I have no problem with someone having some label for their own calculator, for their own use, but those calculators always make it into the collector world and I would hate to see this hobby polluted with fake this and fake that. Fake labels do one other thing. They mask the fact that something inside might have changed as well.

For me the test of whether or not something is appropriate isn't measured by examining things that "are" acceptable (i.e. replacing an internal part with an identical part that could have been done originally), but rather by considering things that are not acceptable (i.e. fake labels, fake keyboard overlays, non-original paint jobs, etc).

Like I said, "reproductions are meant to deceive". There are no two ways about that. Let's take your "wife's hip" example. What if you paid for a titanium hip joint and the doctor said, "hell, I can replace it with aluminum. He won't know until it's too late". What would your opinion be then?


Edited: 23 May 2006, 3:34 p.m.

Hi Mike,

If the fake Mona Lisa is sold as a fake Mona Lisa and I am aware of it the moment I am bidding I see no issue. The key is that what is offered properly has to be properly described and that I do understand the consequences the moment I am buying.

It will be then at that time a consentius act of myself making the bid (or not).

I think this also underlines your remark on the hip. If you know in advance that it is an Alu hip instead of a Titanium hip you can evaluate the pro's and cons. Being confronted afterwards with it is very wrong offcourse.

When I buy a calculator with marks of a peeled back backlabel I also will not know what has been done at the inside, her is no differnce to a calculator with a fake backlabel in my eyes.

Back again to the issue: It is all knowing upfront what is offered and what is done.

That is why I keep saying "Reproductions" are meant to "deceive". Deceitful people aren't going to tell you zip. And worse than that, once they go through a few hands, the new owners might not even be aware of it.

There are probably more fakes on ebay for collectible items than just about any place on earth (fake artifacts, fake sports items, fake autographs, etc). And NONE of them disclose anything about what is fake. Some know, some don't but it was that first production of "Reproductions" that was meant to deceive that started that ball rolling.

It is pie-in-the-sky thinking to believe that full disclosure is all that you need. You won't ever get it, when a reproduction or fake is involved.

This thread is wandering... what was the subject?

Edited: 23 May 2006, 5:06 p.m.

Quote:
For me the test of whether or not something is appropriate isn't measured by examining things that "are" acceptable (i.e. replacing an internal part with an identical part that could have been done originally), but rather by considering things that are not acceptable (i.e. fake labels, fake keyboard overlays, non-original paint jobs, etc).

So, are you saying that restoring a machine's functionality is acceptable, but restoring its appearance is not? That it's okay to take pride in fixing its operation, but it's deceitful to take pride in fixing its cosmetics?

Quote:
Like I said, "reproductions are meant to deceive". There are no two ways about that.

Oh, sure there are.

You seem to be saying that, since it's possible that someone, somewhere could be misled by a reproduction, then all reproductions are inherently deceptive. Quite frankly, I think that's ridiculous, especially when we're talking about replacement parts for consumer products made in the tens of thousands upwards; hardly 'Mona Lisa' numbers.

Ultimately, isn't your position predicated on the idea that a calculator's value is largely determined by what it was like when it left the factory, that it's monotonically downhill from there, and that it's somehow the job of conscientious present-day owners to defend gullible future buyers from being misled?

In such a world, surely any restoration or repair, even cleaning, would be deceptive. How about replacing a lost or damaged external part, such as the battery compartment cover or the little HP badge on a Voyager? How about putting together the best-looking manual, case and box from a number of units? Are these all deceptive too?

Personally, I don't see the difference between replacing a label and replacing a defective component. If both can be done to a standard that is consistent with the original quality of a machine, then I'm fine with that. I'm certainly not going to accept lower-quality repairs or restoration for myself today in order to maybe, possibly, frustrate some supposed future crook whose scam depends on the integrity of the labelling.

Should high-quality replacement labels become widely available, then the condition of the label will no longer matter to serious collectors, and the rest of us will get to have the option of nicer-looking machines.

If a buyer wants to be precious about a machine's provenance, they have to do a lot more than just look at labels, and I consider that to be the buyer's problem -- they set the acceptance standard, so they get to police it.

More importantly, I don't consider it our job to prop up the collectibles market of 2036 by compromising the standards of repair or restoration we can achieve in 2006, nor do I think that wanting the best possible repair is deceptive. I don't see why our hands should be tied, or our reputations besmirched, just because we put our present-day desire for quality restoration ahead of the needs of some hypothetical future collector.

What if you need, say, a new wing/fender for your DB5/Stingray? Would you want to have a label saying 'Hello, I'm a fake wing' on it? For sure not and I think noone really cares as long as it looks original.

If the replacement label is well made and indistinguishable from an original, why bother?

I love the look and feel (and functionality) of old HP calcs and would always replace a damaged lable by a replacement part, if made well enough.

Quote:
Fake labels pollute the market, in my opinion..

So do "fake" card reader gummy wheels, "fake" batteries, ...

Any repair creates a certain distance from the original product to its present state, but I prefer a working machine over one that is looking pristine but useless.

That's *my* optinion.

Marcus

Hi,

My second cent to the discussion: If it was service by HP the backlabel was also replaced. Not original anymore. We do not care for that either I guess(unless they "repaired" the early bugs in 35)

Ronald

Quote:
Any repair creates a certain distance from the original product to its present state, but I prefer a working machine over one that is looking pristine but useless.

That's *my* optinion.


But that isn't the question. The issue becomes relevant, when you go to sell it. If someone had a fake label, do you think most people would disclose that? Doubtful! I often sell HP with non-original batteries and ALWAYS disclose that. Or repaired gummy wheel. The problem isn't wheter or not someone "doesn't mind". The problem is when "true collectors" buy an item that is being sold as original, find out they have a fake or forged copy. Another example is the HP-35 Red Dot. It's quite easy to "fake" and hard to tell from original, on an auction. It's just as good functionally, do you think it's acceptable to punch a hole in a 35 and sell it as a Red Dot?
Quote:
What if you need, say, a new wing/fender for your DB5/Stingray? Would you want to have a label saying 'Hello, I'm a fake wing' on it? For sure not and I think noone really cares as long as it looks original.
Just ask a true collector if they prefer original or copy? Hell, manuals are an excellent example. I would NEVER buy a copy but will pay good price for originals. I once bid $500 on a 97 (standard model), just to get a 97S "original" manual, that was also in the auction. I wouldn't pay $5.00 for a copy.

I don't expect non-collectors to understand this? And I sure am not going to convince someone who doesn't mind "deceit".


Edited: 24 May 2006, 12:35 p.m.

Hello Mike,

It gets more or less an academic discusion I think we will come at the end agreeing not to agree.

What I know is that who is selling the item is important. I always look in th feedback to see if it is a regular HP stuff seller and how the feedback is. After a couple of years and a nearly complete collection I know more or less who is in the market and can or can't be trusted. Also the way the text is written, details in the pictures , price etc. give a good clue if it can be trusted or not. So far I got quit well around with very minor dissapointments.

I always build room for certain risk's when buying, asking myself will I bay suppose this or this is fake.

What I personally hate are the so called 100% mint, unused machines where the rubber feets look worn like racecars done twice the Monto Carly race, manual included and then between the line metioning that is a pdf file on a CD, that kind of things make me take extra care when bidding, very light signs of usage in line with a machine 30 years old.

But sure, I am not a first time here anymore so the deception for first time collectors (or sellers) certainly is there.

Ronald

Quote:
The issue becomes relevant, when you go to sell it.

I don't hink I will ;-)

I agree that any modification to the machine should be clearly disclosed.

Marcus

Personally, I don't care whether one I buy is truly "original" or not, as long as it looks original. If I were in the market for another vintage calc, I'd pay more for one with a "fake" label or other "fake" parts than for one that had a label marked "Reproduction" or that had been left "all original" but showed signs of wear and tear. In the same way, I wouldn't buy a print of a famous painting that had "Reproduction" stamped in the corner.

A few months ago, I bought a new belt hanger for my POST Versalog slide rule case. It was a reproduction, but it bore the POST logo, the leather looked "used" and creased, and the metal clip showed slight signs of corrosion. If it hadn't been advertised by the seller as a reproduction and hadn't come with a packing slip that said clearly that it was a copy, I'd have thought it was an original. But the only thing that matters to me is that it matches my decades-old leather case perfectly and looks like they've always been together.

When Volkswagon announced that they were bringing back the VW Beetle I was excited, because I've loved them since the '60s. But I was appalled when I saw one of the ugly new things. I had been hoping for something that even a VW engineer from the '60s would have trouble identifying as a reproduction without a close examination. Instead, they produced something that very obviously is not a "real" Beetle, even to a casual observer. So I gave up any plan of buying one.

I see both sides of the argument.

I do not believe that the reproduction labels intended for use as part of a restoration are "fake" any more than third-party spare parts for a vehicle which is no longer made are "fake".

There's a fundamental difference in intent between a restoration and a counterfeit. Let's face it, the only "counterfeit" HP calculators being produced are those made today at HP's behest...

Let's consider card-reader calculators such as the HP-65. There is, as far as we know, no such thing as an HP-65 with a working card reader with original wheel. All the original wheels have turned to goo. If the card reader works, then someone has replaced the wheel.

Put another, all HP-65s with working card readers have a non-original wheel. That, in turn, entails irrepairable damage to the label. Either the label shows signs of having been peeled back (which impairs the cosmetics), or the label is replaced with a new one.

Remember that when HP repaired the calculators, they removed the label to access the screws, and then put on a new label. This idea of preserving the label is strictly one of the collector community.

So, what is more valuable: a fully-restored, cosmetically perfect HP-65, or an HP-65 with a gooey wheel? That all depends upon the individual's perspective.

Suppose we're talking about a classic car; is one with the original oil and tankful of gas (that has turned to gel) more valuable than one which has been maintained and restored? Again, it is perspective.

My conclusion is that well-made reproduction labels are not fake; they are simply new production spare parts as much as replacement wheels. It is legitimate to be concerned about the quality of the spare parts; some of these labels have obvious misspellings. But that is a matter to be brought up with the maker of these spare parts.

I also agree with disclosure. Rather than pejorative terms such as "fake" or even "reproduction", I suggest that we advocate terms such as "all-original" and "restored".

In the case of an HP-65, "all-original" means that it's a museum piece but of limited use since the card reader doesn't work. "Restored" implies that everything works; at least the wheel is non-original and if the label is intact then it is non-original as well.

By the way, I happen to own both an "all-original" and a "restored" HP-65. Cosmetically, both are about the same, with a slight edge to the "all-original". I have the original label for the "restored" HP-65, and it looks terrible; I don't regret having replaced it.

I wonder why I keep the "all-original" HP-65. Its wheel is complete goo, and it serves no purpose other than to gather dust. I'll probably end up putting it on eBay just to get rid of it.

The "restored" one, on the other hand, goes with me and gets used. For me, anyway, it's far more valuable.

Amen, b-b! Now that's introducing clarity to this "kerfuffle" (squabble).

-- KS