08-21-2008, 05:30 PM
Heh, that's one way of looking at it. Thanks Brian! 
Let's see...
I think the original basket case 89 cost me $15. Add in the cost of resistors and capacitors...speaker and tubes came from my private stash...and you have a total cost of maybe $30. Cost of labor involved in stripping, painting, reassembling...PRICELESS.
I really wonder why Philco did not make this change in 1933. Old man Skinner probably would not allow it - IF it were even suggested...even though those autodyne oscillator circuits in the 89 and 19 sets were giving problems even when the sets were new.
Just think...THIS could have been the 89 Code 123, instead of their changing the 89 mixer-oscillator to a Type 77 tube late in 1934 and retaining that autodyne circuit. Had they adopted the 6A7 instead, I believe we would not be hearing too many complaints about 89 and 19 sets these days.
Let's see...
I think the original basket case 89 cost me $15. Add in the cost of resistors and capacitors...speaker and tubes came from my private stash...and you have a total cost of maybe $30. Cost of labor involved in stripping, painting, reassembling...PRICELESS.
I really wonder why Philco did not make this change in 1933. Old man Skinner probably would not allow it - IF it were even suggested...even though those autodyne oscillator circuits in the 89 and 19 sets were giving problems even when the sets were new.
Just think...THIS could have been the 89 Code 123, instead of their changing the 89 mixer-oscillator to a Type 77 tube late in 1934 and retaining that autodyne circuit. Had they adopted the 6A7 instead, I believe we would not be hearing too many complaints about 89 and 19 sets these days.
--
Ron Ramirez
Ferdinand IN
![[-]](https://philcoradio.com/phorum/images/bootbb/collapse.png "[-]")
