Date   : Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:40:34 -0500
From   : jules.richardson99@... (Jules Richardson)
Subject: making replica acorn cards

stuart wrote:
>> Jules wrote:
>> I suppose I'm just not seeing a good scenario (amongst the general 
>> public[1]) for having boards / machines that look exactly like the
>> original to the untrained/unknowing eye; it just seems like a good
>> way to pass off an item as something that it is not. I'm all for
>> using original parts and look-a-like boards, so long as it's obvious
>> even to the unwary that it's a replica rather than an original.
> 
> I am not sure how many people (knowing or otherwise) would be
> interested in these boards, but I take your point.

It's not the boards in isolation that I'm worried about - more 20 years 
down the line when entire machines are being passed off (possibly 
unwittingly by then) as "original" when they're actually not.

Whilst I agree with reproductions being faithful to the original 
schematics, I do think they should be clearly marked as being such rather 
than the potential being there for mistaking them as genuine Acorn items.

>> Having said that, I know that I wouldn't buy a machine without
>> knowing what boards were in it and being able to see the condition of
>> each one - but maybe there are people out there who'd buy a System
>> machine based on the case appearance alone, so even with 'branded'
>> replica boards there's still scope for deception?
> 
> Anything that one man can make can be duplicated.
> Just look at the fakes coming out of some countries, so good nobody can
> say which is which.

Oh, for sure. I just think that "we" should make it obvious that any boards 
made now are repro rather than original.

> The question is what kind of market are we talking about? How many
> people actually want replica Acorn system boards? My personal feeling
> is that market is very small indeed.

Yes, mine too. Tiny, in fact.

I can't think of a situation where it hurts anyone (with good intentions 
:-) to clearly mark the PCBs as repro, though - it's not like it will 
change the user's experience of the machine.

>> [1] less of an issue with museums, I think, because they'd make the
>> replica status obvious amongst the surrounding display material
>> (well, I hope anyway. I'd be upset if they didn't :-)
> 
> Even the best "experts" can be taken in by a fake!

Well, yes :) But I was thinking that museums might be the ones to actually 
commission a replica, and that if they did so they'd 'market' it as such 
(think Colossus and Babbage rebuilds), and that once made it'd be unlikely 
to end up in private hands anyway - so it's not an issue there if it looks 
100% like the original.

> The big thing is that they have something that is original to
> show the public, even if it does not work, and be honest how many
> old computers do you see actually doing something when on display in a
> museum?

I think an awful lot is lost when you can't actually *use* the thing. It 
was nice working at Bletchley, where there was at least an aim to restore 
as much to working order as possible. The problem there was that little 
thought often seemed to be given to *keeping* things running for as long as 
possible - and also refreshing working displays as/when it was no longer 
viable to keep the older items going.

 >  So all the old non-working boards can go to the display cases
> and replica boards can be used those that want to have a working,
> original looking system.

I'm not certain how long even replica boards are a viable option - supply 
of original working parts (or pin-for-pin compatibles) will eventually dry 
up, and cost-wise I don't know if it'll ever be realistic to emulate each 
individual IC with something that looks outwardly like the original but 
contains something modern inside doing the same job.

I suppose it would be an interesting exercise to try making e.g. a 14-pin 
DIL IC which had a surface-mount IC hidden inside emulating the original's 
functionality - then multiplying that cost/effort by the number of ICs in a 
typical machine. My guess is that you could in theory have a replica Acorn 
System machine running in 40 years' time which behaved and looked like the 
original even at the component level, but the cost would be astronomical, 
and at some point small surface-mount ICs will probably go the way of the 
dodo too.

Personally I'll try and keep what I have running in original form for as 
long as possible, but I suspect that they've got 20 or 30 years at most.

cheers

Jules