Re: AppleTalk on IIGS - Questions...

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

chippy replied:

>In article <20031203233936.07996.00000080@mb-m16.aol.com>,
> mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) wrote:
>
>> chippy wrote:
>> 
>> >I still have tons of keyboards. I only have 2 copies of AppleShare 3.0 
>> >left, and one copy of AppleShare 2.0.x left. One of the AppleShare 3.0's 
>> >is perfect for a collector because it is still in the shrink wrap. That 
>> >one will cost more, but the other has known good disks.
>> 
>> I see this thing about shrink-wrap a lot.  Don't "collectors" know
>> how easy it is to re-shrink-wrap anything?
>> 
>
>I mean that it is still in the original shrink wrap. It has never been 
>opened. That seems to make it more valuable to some collectors. 
>Re-shrink wrapping software and selling it as never been opened is 
>simply fraud. Buyer beware. I am not one of those sellers.

Of course you aren't--I didn't mean to imply that you were.

But shrink wrap is regularly reapplied by retailers and others,
and there is essentially no way to authenticate "original" shrink
wrap.  As a result, it is surprising that it carries much weight in
determining value (since the real issue is whether it is in "mint"
condition).

A further irony--if a collector has an "original shrink-wrapped"
subspace communicator, how can he even be sure that there's
something in there without breaking the shrink wrap and erasing
the incremental value of the shrink-wrap?  It's a bizarre concept,
since it precludes even seeing what's inside!

Reminds me of a story my father used to tell me.  He said,
"Watermelons are white inside until you cut them and light
strikes them, then they turn red."  It took me a while to get
the epistemological joke.

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/