Q: what do these five things have in common?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Click past the break to see the answer, if it's not obvious...
...they're all replicas. In order:
1. US M1873 Old West Pistol
Note: Be careful with replica guns. They can get you (or your kids) into trouble they can't get you out of. You'd think you'd be safe in the house, but not necessarily if you own a mix of real and fake firearms. The rate of accidental gun deaths has been falling in the U.S. since 1930, but still, there were 884 accidental gun deaths in 1999, according to the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Click here for a .PDF copy of "Jeff Cooper's Four Rules of Gun Safety" compliments of Rex Tincher.
2. Shay Model A Ford replica, 1981. NLA. Photo compliments of Serious Wheels.
3. VTA70 EL34 tube amp, a working replica Dynaco Stereo 70 with upgraded and modernized parts, sold in kit or finished form, in several different variations, to take several different tube types, by Bob Latino at tubes4hifi.com. $639–$1,005. I've written about this amp before; I had hoped to use VAC's replica of the famous Marantz Model 7 preamplifier here, for variety if nothing else, but I couldn't find a decent picture of it online. Ya hate it when that happens.
4. The Leica M9, a fully working contemporary camera, yes, but essentially it's a digital replica of the family of film Leica M's that began with the M3 and ended with the M7 and MP. $6,995. By contrast, its lineup mates, the X1
5. Ten-and-a-half inch high horse sculpture made of hand-patinated bonded bronze, from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in conjunction with Princely Collections of Liechtenstein. $395. Based on a model by Giovanni Bologna, called Giambologna (Flemish, c. 1529–1608), that was probably cast in the workshop of sculptor Giovanni Francesco Susini (Italian, c. 1575–1653). Giambologna's models were created for the equestrian statue of Grand Duke Cosimo I de' Medici in the Piazza della Signoria in Florence, Italy, which was finished in 1593.
Mike
*Does not currently conform to The Pinker Rule; caveat emptor.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Kenneth Jarecke: "Things I bring to a party at Paris Hilton's house."
Featured Comment by Bill Rogers: "They all are things I would never buy."
Featured Comment by Pavel: "All are historically significant."
Featured Comment by cb: "They are all obsolete."
As to the M9, they are always in short supply in this country. I don't see anyone breaking down door to get an X1 or even as S2. I had a large dealer tell me that the S2 was designed as a rental camera and Leica does not expect lots orders.
Posted by: Jay | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 04:07 PM
Since the first three photos when embiggened had titles like "replicacolt" I thought that couldn't possibly be it. I guessed that the answer was that they all represented improvements to an existing design made possible through new technology. Oh well.
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 05:38 PM
Are you saying that a digital sensor is a replica of film? But where are the film, er, digital sensor, advance lever and the rewind crank? :)
Posted by: toto | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 05:41 PM
Mike,
my guess was that they were all pointing the the right, but I suspect that was too easy for the TOP readership. I'm going to have to try harder...
Posted by: James | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 05:58 PM
If you want to keep reading about the American Indian in the "wild west" check out The book of the Navajo by Raymond Friday Locke. Conforms to the Pinker Rule.
For modern light reading I enjoy most everything by Tony Hillerman.
Posted by: Steve Weeks | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 06:26 PM
LOL I was gonna say they are all analogue !
Posted by: Paul | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 07:31 PM
OK, I guessed right so there must be something to your reasoning, but I feel that #3 and especially #4 belong in a different category. One could argue that these are modern variants of tried-and-true designs, rather than straight replicas like #1 and #5 (I don't know enough about #2 to include it in either group), or even evolutions thereof. Yes, I see how one could argue that they are merely tweaks. But umbrellas, cleavers, toasters, bagels and oxfords have changed less--do they belong on this list?
Posted by: robert e | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 07:40 PM
Or, to put it another way: an M3 is to an M9 as a revolver is to an automatic (rather than a non-working replica of a revolver).
Posted by: robert e | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 07:52 PM
What does sh*t mean? I've counted at least three instances of this word in TOP in the last two days? This freshly coined word is new to me, and appears to be new to TOP. Perhaps your long experience as editor of a well regarded magazine can help?
;)
Posted by: Mani Sitaraman | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 08:53 PM
i think i understand your point. but...
would you call the 50/1.4 lens on that camera a replica copy of leica's first 50/1.4? if not, then your analogy fails.
or to put it another way: unlike that replica firearm, the m9 is unlikely to get you into any trouble that an m3 would have gotten you out of.
or, yet another perspective: all the actual replicas are designed to be no better than the originals they emulate (i am assuming regarding the amp). the m9 offers significant advantages over any previous m (and a couple of disadvantages; after all, it's a different design. natch).
Posted by: chris | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 11:27 PM
"I guessed that the answer was that they all represented improvements to an existing design made possible through new technology."
Roger,
Well, in at least three of the five cases, I think you could make that argument. A gun that won't shoot might be thought of as an improvement by some, but probably not to anyone who likes guns.
The big improvement with the horse is that you can have the replica in your living room, but you can only look at the original when you're in New York. That's got to count for something.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Saturday, 04 September 2010 at 11:37 PM
Two things: I like it how Mike takes criticism like a man and posts the comments of people who seem to take offense to his analogy. Further, I love the M9. I also have an M7 and an MP and as much as I want to like those cameras better, especially considering how beautiful the MP is, I shoot almost everything with the M9. It's a great camera, and I have made many personal comparisons between my favorite 35mm films and the M9 files. I just cannot justify shooting with anything but the M9 unless I want nostalgia or "something different."
Since Mike likes Porsches, my friend just test-drove three different types of brand new Carreras extensively on the Autobahn. He told me today that as much as he wants to like the manual stick-shift, the new dual-clutch automatic outperforms it in every way. Oh well, as I said, I'm not selling my film Ms, but I love the M9.
Posted by: Bernd Reinhardt | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 02:51 AM
Metal.
Posted by: Michael Farrell | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 03:01 AM
Mike Johnston wishes he had one original of each.
Me, the Dynaco replica amp, however why would I require same? I already have an original Dynaco amp and an FM3 I built myself, in regular daily use! And it is in turn connected to a pair of Dynaco A25 speakers from too many years ago to count. And the rig should keeps on sounding great. UI also have spare tubes in stock!
The remainder of the items, well the pistol could be discarded, I have no use for firearms of any sort, the Ford replica only if I could purchase a new Ford in lieu of, the sculpture is a nice door stop and ditto the Leica.
Believe I have my piorities correct!
Posted by: Bryce Lee in Burlington, Ontario Canada | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 03:35 AM
I could draw no shared connection other than Cowboys and Hollywood.
Posted by: charlie | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 09:31 AM
The ST-70 has a dead giveaway: The original didn't have a PC board, it used point-to-point wiring.
Posted by: Archer Sully | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 09:46 AM
A replica should be the same dimensions or at least a scale replica of the original. In that respect, the M9 at least fails to meet the requirement, IMHO.
Posted by: Poagao | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 10:30 AM
I recognized the ST-70 as replica right away; too many tubes on the circuit board. I've owned 6 of them, but right now it's a C-J MV45 for that ultra warm tubeyness.
Posted by: Tom Brenholts | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 10:57 AM
Now if someone would just bring back AR3a speakers...
Posted by: Mike Plews | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 11:32 AM
"right now it's a C-J MV45 for that ultra warm tubeyness"
You have taste, Sir!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 12:12 PM
Re item #1, here's a picture of the real thing, displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art:
http://www.pbase.com/brandol/image/65208930
Posted by: Burton Randol | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 12:13 PM
"Now if someone would just bring back AR3a speakers..."
Mike,
Next best thing--Peter Comeau, who for many years was the chief designer for Mission speakers in England, designed a modern replica of the Dynaco A-25. Several, actually--the most interesting was a floorstanding version with a separate sealed chamber that the aperiodic vent vented into. They were marketed for a while by World Designs. World Designs recently closed down, but there are signs that it will open for business under new management this winter.
Google "World Designs" and look under "catalogue."
A new replica of the AR3a would be wonderful--of course it would have to be essentially a redesign. But tweeters are so much better now than they were then, and you could blow the tweeters on the original just by turning the volume up too far. Ask me how I know--
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 12:20 PM
"Now if someone would just bring back AR3a speakers..."
They did, in 1995. The AR-303 was a modern version of the 3a. Not exactly a visual replica, though, since the base model was manufactured with the same black cabinet finish of the then current NHT line. I wish they would have used a walnut veneer and beige grill similar to the original, but the sound is fine and the tweeters can take the heat. It's the last great speaker AR made using a design philosophy that originated in the late fifties with the AR-3.
Posted by: Jeff S | Sunday, 05 September 2010 at 10:12 PM
I call "dibs" on answering Mani's question!
Posted by: Scott Baker | Monday, 06 September 2010 at 12:15 AM
"Now if someone would just bring back AR3a speakers..."
My mother moved house last year. The previous owner of the house left behind a pair of Acoustic Research AR-4a speakers (I think that's the right number - they have the three way switch on the back). They look like any other generic speaker cab of that era but sound fantastic.
Posted by: Steve Smith | Monday, 06 September 2010 at 03:39 AM
I grew up with the "new" good stereo being a Rek-o-kut turntable, Sherwood tube amp, and AR-2A speakers. Man, I was so happy when I bought my own stereo, with a modern transistor amp (Pioneer I believe) and Heil AMT-5 speakers. And even happier when I could start getting CDs instead of LPs.
Like my problems with film grain, I'm really bothered by the common noise artifacts of LPs, hisses and clicks and pops.
What lovers of tube gear call "warm" sound is to me cloying distorted nasty sound; it makes me feel like I'm packed in cotton balls and breathing warm moist air. I love the clear clean sound of CDs (at least when they've been engineered competently; anything can be made to sound bad with sufficient effort).
And speakers have improved SO MUCH since the 1970s. They were the weak link back then, and these days it's hard to buy really bad speakers.
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Wednesday, 08 September 2010 at 11:16 AM