Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
compared to 1967. Amazingly, just those Mullards have gone up 1000%.
This catalog was found in another post, different item/page.
Cool stuff. I was only 5. Likely, a copy of the catalog was in the house along with my older brothers Playboy.
Things like these price comparisons have to be taken in context.
For starters, the value of $1 US has changed in the ensuing years; one 1967 US dollar is equal to $7.29 today, or a change of 729.4%.
Put another way, if you live in the US and had you invested one dollar instead of buying tubes with it, you would have seven bucks and change in the bank, if your investment kept up with inflation (which is not difficult to do).
So that tube has increased in asking price, but not by much. There are many products that have gone down in price in the ensuing years (take something simple like long distance charges ... a phone call to your aunt in 1967 probably cost more than a dollar, while today it might be ten cents).
On a basket of audio items you might have bought in 1967, versus a similar basket of goods today, it is way cheaper than in 1967. So many audio parts or components would have fared badly with the passage of time. Taken as a whole, be happy you are an audio nut in 2017 and not 1967, price-wise.
My first stereo system, bought when I was still in the 10th grade, cost me about $600.00 and was right at the bottom of the HiFi catalog. The Sansui AU-101 amp was $180.00 for a whopping 13 watts per channel output ($703.00 today). When I began my career in HiFi about five years later, we would sell you a Technics SL-1200 MKII and a $100 MSRP cartridge for about $350.00 ($1,406.00 today).
Incidentally, my parents bought their home in 1952 for $3,200.00, and today it's valued at about $220,000.00. A dollar invested at the rate of inflation in 1952 would be worth $29, 416.00. So, there are better investments than audio tubes.
On a similar note, a dollar was, comparatively speaking, dearer to your ancestors of 1967 than today, as average incomes are higher and have increased more than the rate of inflation. Taken as a % of your monthly paycheck that tube was relatively expensive; the minimum wage of today is slightly more than 1000% higher than in 1967, while higher paying jobs have increased even more than that.
So you don't work any harder to buy that tube now than you would have then, and chances are you work less now to earn the cost of that tube today.
Edits: 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17 03/29/17
I completely agree it's all perspective/value of the dollar for the moment.
The SoCal house I was raised in(62) cost my parents 10k. Mortgage was 50 bucks.
That amount was huge since your salary was well under 10k/year?
The same house/lot in middle America was probably less than half that amount?
I don't remember the actual numbers, but I read during the 90's tech crash, a 10k investment of Apple stock would now enable you to enjoy that 500K systemin a proper house, without a dent in you now sizable gain.
Meanwhile, I will just listen to my system and worry about my health care plan covering life's unexpected curve balls.
I bought Apple around 2002 for $18 a share, and in keeping with my investment strategy, sold when it doubled.
Of course had I kept it it would be worth much more today, plus there were a few stock splits in the mean time, but you can't cherry pick when you can't predict the future.
You could have bought Harley-Davidson in 1984 during the buyout and IPO (stock split I forget how many times but I know that the last time I did the math, $10,000 of HD in 1984 was worth $250,000 and that was during the 90's.
Apple was as low as $13 only nine years ago. It's not like people didn't have enough chances to buy in.
But, in the long term, investing in a basket of reasonably well run companies should give you an average return of about 10% a year. That would include times when the portfolio went down as well as up. In market speak, "long term" is not three years, it's thirty.
Investing is easy, and investing when you're young is a no-brainer, but no-one does it. If you put $100 a month for the three years from 18 to 21 and then never saved a dime again, you will have $460,000 when you turn 65 at the average return of an Index Fund which is a buy-and-forget stock.
In other words, you don't have to have a crystal ball to profit from investment; that return would be with no Apple or Alphabet or name-your-market-darling well timed buy and sell in your portfolio.
You always hear from us old farts that "I wish I knew then what I know now", and it's isn't all about how to get laid. And it doesn't mean who we tell, or how often, kids won't listen. I get it ... I didn't either.
But I wish I had. I didn't "get it" until I was 40, and that means I would have to invest $300 a month for 25 years to equal what I could have had if I put away that $3600 when I was a kid. I could have afforded it too.
Apple split 4 times, but the first two required you were an early buyer (1987 2 for 1 and 2000 2 for 1). The next split was a 2 for 1 in 2005 (100 shares became 200 shares) and the whopping 7 for 1 in 2014 (100 shares became 700 shares). Had you been in on all of them (and a shrewd investor wouldn't have been as the value had some nasty lows over those years) and bought a board lot (100 shares) at the beginning you would have about $1.1 million today; if you just bought before 2005 you would have 1400 shares today at $114 a share (or so), so ... $160,000 more or less.
But I have to say that when I did buy Apple everyone told me I was a fool, and when I sold at a 100% profit, everyone told me I was lucky to get out. You need a thick skin to win with individual picks, but an ETF is easy ... when the NYSE or TSE goes up, you profit along with it.
Easy; the rate of return is about 10% a year over the last 100 years. Even if you bought the day before Black Friday of 1929 or the crash of 2008 you would still average that return over the long term.
Edits: 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17 04/04/17
to some extant. Back then on the gold standard. Prices were fairly stable and Fort Knox was one of the mostly highly guarded facilities in the world.
But 20 years back when i started collecting tubes i spent all my disposable income, and then some to get rare tubes. And even then, tube guys knew that the major tube makers were all gone and you had better get a stash for your equipment or there would be no replacements. Fortunately, the tubes that were made in China and Russia started to be sold for the audio market. In spite of that the price of vintage tubes have not diminished and is still a sellers market.
I purchased some NOS GE 6BL8's for the Mac Tuner. $1.88 list and I paid $5.00.
Just a 266% increase over 50 years,not bad. Thinking demand is small for radio tubes, so price reflects this.
NOS power tubes are only going north$$ as supply dwindles. How many more barn/warehouse finds are still out there? Me thinks not many.
at $1.63 each! $16.30 for ten? Now, they are $163 each.
If only we could get a way-back machine. REAL 7189A and 7199, at under $5 each.
Steve look again
The 7189a were 1.25 each when you bought 10 and the 7199s were 1.90 each when you bought 10.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
If only I had the vision at 5, to convince someone to start WAREHOUSING my retirement fund!
I like the LIFETIME WARRANTY on RS tubes!
Have you "thumbed" through the catalog? Other mind blowing, take you back moments reminding you what RS really was-a great place for the hobbyist.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: