Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

blackstar · Jul 18, 2006, 08:10 AM

can anyone tell me why VCR's are soooo expensive on ebay?
when I look at craigslist they go for 5$, on eBay they go anywhere from 50 to 200$, I understand that some of them are High Definition, others skip commercials and some play european and US VHS, but most of them are just plain ordinary VCR's....

stevesnj · Jul 18, 2006, 08:23 AM

I would go to target and buy a new one for $50 than a used one for $50

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 08:30 AM

Just bought two new top-of-the-range Panasonics for $180 ish (each). That's top spec, with everything (S-VHS, PAL, NTSC).

That should give you a target price.

Gossamer · Jul 18, 2006, 08:33 AM

Agg! You spent $180 on a VCR?? Twice??

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Agg! You spent $180 on a VCR?? Twice??

Yep. DVD players won't play the 3,000 odd VCR tapes I have lying around, for some reason.

Dakar · Jul 18, 2006, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. DVD players won't play the 3,000 odd VCR tapes I have lying around, for some reason.

Manufacturing defect, no doubt.

Gossamer · Jul 18, 2006, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. DVD players won't play the 3,000 odd VCR tapes I have lying around, for some reason.

I'd be willing to bet that a $50 VCR would play them too...
Got any pictures of these tapes 'lying around?' That'd be a sight to see.

tooki · Jul 18, 2006, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Agg! You spent $180 on a VCR?? Twice??

Dude. S-VHS and multiformat. That's not available for $50, new or used.

tooki

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I'd be willing to bet that a $50 VCR would play them too...

In my experience, cheaper VCRs don't play tapes recorded on other machines quite as well.

And I'm not really the type to quibble over $260. Heck, the machines they replaced cost nigh on $1k each when they were new, so I figured I was getting a bargain.

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Got any pictures of these tapes 'lying around?' That'd be a sight to see.

Sorry dude, I actually don't have a camera. Never owned one in my life.

The fun bit about the tape collection is that absolutely none of them are labelled (yes, I am insane). So if I'm in the mood for watching something I just grab one and it's completely random as to what's on it.

kaze0 · Jul 18, 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

In my experience, cheaper VCRs don't play tapes recorded on other machines quite as well.

And I'm not really the type to quibble over $260. Heck, the machines they replaced cost nigh on $1k each when they were new, so I figured I was getting a bargain.

Sorry dude, I actually don't have a camera. Never owned one in my life.

The fun bit about the tape collection is that absolutely none of them are labelled (yes, I am insane). So if I'm in the mood for watching something I just grab one and it's completely random as to what's on it.

It's $360. And you have 3000 recorded tapes? Yikes! Did you edit all the commercials out too?

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by kaze0

It's $360.

Difference between $180 machines (as bought) and Gossamer's suggestion of $50 machines.

180 - 50 = 130.
130 x 2 = 260.

Originally Posted by kaze0

And you have 3000 recorded tapes? Yikes! Did you edit all the commercials out too?

Nope. They're "as broadcast". Bear in mind that UK TV has nowhere near the amount of commercials that US TV does (and until recently, half the channels didn't have ads at all). I actually like watching old ads anyways*.

* I picked up some copies of "Woman's Weekly" from the 50's not so long back. The ads are hilarious!

hickey · Jul 18, 2006, 10:11 AM

I never knew there were VCRs that could skip through commercials, let alone HD VCRs

Dakar · Jul 18, 2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

(and until recently, half the channels didn't have ads at all)

Query: How did they survive? Fees for service providers?

Gossamer · Jul 18, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Query: How did they survive? Fees for service providers?

The BBC is partially government-funded, right? So it's tax dollars.

And I get your point on the multi-format. I only play commercial VHS tapes on my cheapo VCR, so I guess I wouldn't see the difference. The thing about that $260....that could buy you a fairly okay digital camera...

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar

Query: How did they survive? Fees for service providers?

They were the BBC. Which means that they're funded by the government forcing us to pay a yearly licence fee if we own a TV. At the moment it's about $200 (so, $200 x 20m households = $4bn a year).

Until 1997 there were only four terrestrial channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. There's still only five. I never got into the satellite thing (which started late 80's) as the only thing I've ever seen on satellite which was worth watching was "Italian Stripping Housewives".

Gossamer · Jul 18, 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

There's still only five. I never got into the satellite thing (which started late 80's) as the only thing I've ever seen on satellite which was worth watching was "Italian Stripping Housewives".

I watched some BBC America this weekend (Who's Line!) and I noticed their show titles tend to be a bit more descriptive and blunt. Although we do have 'Desperate Housewives.'

Dakar · Jul 18, 2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

They were the BBC. Which means that they're funded by the government forcing us to pay a yearly licence fee if we own a TV. At the moment it's about $200 (so, $200 x 20m households = $4bn a year).

Until 1997 there were only four terrestrial channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. There's still only five. I never got into the satellite thing (which started late 80's) as the only thing I've ever seen on satellite which was worth watching was "Italian Stripping Housewives".

Mmm... the way I read it I thought we were talking about tens of channels. I did know about the BBC ones...

Doofy · Jul 18, 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I watched some BBC America this weekend (Who's Line!) and I noticed their show titles tend to be a bit more descriptive and blunt. Although we do have 'Desperate Housewives.'

Arh. "Italian Stripping Housewives" wasn't a BBC thing - it was RTL2 I think, then moved over to Bravo (both being satellite channels). Rather than being a drama like Desperate Housewives, it was actually a game show from Italy where (surprisingly enough) housewives stripped - but the best thing was the way they dubbed the Italian language with a really dodgy British accent (like the US dubbing a foreign show with valley girl speak). If you've ever seen Eurotrash, you'll know what I mean. Very amusing whilst relaxing after a night on the town.

But I never noticed that blunt titles with the BBC thing. I'll have to keep an eye open for it now that you've mentioned it.