Retro-designed modern TVs
September 30, 2005 7:23 PM   Subscribe

I'll take one of each.
posted by keswick at 7:39 PM on September 30, 2005

Me too! But how do you buy one?
posted by TedW at 8:09 PM on September 30, 2005

They won't tell you how much they want for a new Predicta on the website. Prepare for a walletectomy if you want one.
posted by rdone at 8:24 PM on September 30, 2005

From the FAQ:

3. What is the price of a Predicta TV?

Telstar Predicta is actually priced less than the original Philco Predicta of 1958 (indexed for inflation). Of course the Predicta with its complexity, cabinetry and unique features, is not priced with the cheapest TV you can find. Predicta TV is priced to be comparable with the average high-end TV you would find in your local TV store. For more information on prices and dealers near you, please contact us at ...

posted by mazola at 8:29 PM on September 30, 2005

with reference to the above:
Telstar Predicta is actually priced less than the original Philco Predicta of 1958 (indexed for inflation).

Mefi Jr. Detectives, please report to the Philco thread. Please report to the Philco thread.
posted by mwhybark at 8:30 PM on September 30, 2005

Hrm. Getting the price of a Philco Predicta (MODEL 4243) from here and putting that value into the inflation calculator we get:

What cost $269.95 in 1958 would cost $1770.85 in 2005.
posted by mazola at 8:43 PM on September 30, 2005

The high end pedestal model (4654) went for $459.95 in 1958 makind it about $3017.23 in 2005 dollars.
posted by mazola at 8:47 PM on September 30, 2005

Then I and my Meteor will be living on a streetcorner.

But we will be so happy together. So very, very happy.
posted by kalimac at 9:27 PM on September 30, 2005

Price is addressed in this story. It ain't cheap.
posted by schmedeman at 9:30 PM on September 30, 2005

Ahem... flat panel displays such as Plasma and Thin Film Transistor LCD have dropped in price some 50 % over the last 90 days.

4x3 analog is effectively dead. 16X9 digital is the only thing selling above $500, this quarter.

Only a serious victim of fashion with an inflated ego and far more income than common sense would lay out 2-3 grand for a 4X3 Standard Def TV.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:26 PM on September 30, 2005

My god. It's a good thing they DON'T list the price, or I'd probably run in front of a bus due to the fact that I can't afford them. Those are just gorgeous.
posted by BoringPostcards at 11:48 PM on September 30, 2005

Ahem yourself, PBoy... ever hear of something called "style?" Also known as "flair" and other names apparently foreign to your sterile realm.

It's why a 1932 Deusenberg goes for a million dollars, even though leaf-spring suspension is effectively dead, and power steering and ABS and fuel injection are coin of the realm now, blah blah blah. Just think of how many Honda Accords you could buy, and they're so much more reliable.

To restate your nasty little proposition: Only a person who knew the value of things, not just the price, and who had an aesthetic sense of taste as well as a knowledge of technical stats de jour would buy one of these beautiful babies.

Oh well.... it's a free country; we can live by our own values, with nobody telling us how to go about it. I'll admit to the occasional momentary craving for a fashion Gestapo, but it doesn't last, for long, not seriously....

I love living on the bleeding edge too, PBoy, but there's technology and then there's art. They're not opposed.
posted by clicktosubmit at 4:33 AM on October 1, 2005

After following schmedeman's great link, I have a news flash that may give Pboy a stroke: I've seen the OLD sets in antique stores for about the price of the new color replicas. Go figure that one, huh. They don't even have progressive scanning, 3:2 pulldown, 7.1 DTS, Faroudja whizbang, or anything. Just the 4:3 (not 4x3) analog NTSC format that, as it happens, almost all the actual content is produced and broadcast in, this quarter.
posted by clicktosubmit at 4:45 AM on October 1, 2005

I want the one from "Blade Runner," with speech control...
posted by clicktosubmit at 4:50 AM on October 1, 2005

Surely somebody could take one of PareidoliaticBoy's cheap LCD panels, put a replica injection mold around it, stick it on a base... Voila, replica Predicta for a lot less money.
posted by Chuckles at 5:31 AM on October 1, 2005

Ick. No really, ick. I can't believe anyone would want something so tacky and gimicky. This isn't style, this is kitsch.
posted by aspo at 6:30 AM on October 1, 2005

aspo: exactly!

I like the meteor, but I'm not in the market for another TV.
Even though the volume on my 5-yr old set doesn't work for crap, I'm keeping it for the foreseeable future.

I see the appeal in these, and 4:3 isn't close to dead.
It is cheap, though.

13 HD channels aren't going to supplant the hundreds of channels of poop delivered to homes across the country, sorry.

I love that someone's made a business of fixing these babies up. Chuckles may be onto something, as far as dressing up a newer plasma into a molding to get the kitsch factor.
posted by Busithoth at 7:06 AM on October 1, 2005

Kitsch is good!
posted by carter at 7:09 AM on October 1, 2005

It would be a perfect match for a computer stuck inside a vintage typewriter ...
posted by carter at 7:10 AM on October 1, 2005

They look fantastic here, but think of those horrible Crosley vintage style radios you can get at places like Target. They're based on gorgeous originals and yet they're the most depressingly ugly pieces of crap imaginable; the only place they look right at home is a yard sale.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:05 AM on October 1, 2005

Put an HDTV monitor in it and you'd have something.
posted by shockingbluamp at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2005

clicktosubmit, you have to be kidding with that comparison of yours between a vintage car (Duesenberg, by the way) which is a functional object in its own right and a tacky TV 'replica'. The one has historic value, the other is a lame attempt to tap into fat wallets of jerk losers.
A TV set is principally just means of getting content, and is very much worthless on its own (unless, of course, if used as decoration). It has much less value than a computer and I don't see anyone reproducing the old XTs anytime soon.
posted by Laotic at 4:31 PM on October 1, 2005

Laotic : "clicktosubmit, you have to be kidding with that comparison of yours between a vintage car (Duesenberg, by the way) which is a functional object in its own right and a tacky TV 'replica'. The one has historic value, the other is a lame attempt to tap into fat wallets of jerk losers.
"A TV set is principally just means of getting content, and is very much worthless on its own (unless, of course, if used as decoration)."

Er, isn't that exactly the point of what clicktosubmit is saying? A car, as well, is principally just a means of getting from place to place, and is very much worthless on its own (unless, of course, if it has historical value, or if used as decoration). This TV satisfies conditions 1 and 3. The car satisfies 1, 2, and 3. An HDTV satisfies 1 very well, but not 2 or 3.

That is, PBoy is saying a TV has value for one purpose, and one purpose only: watching TV. To the extent that a TV does not show as good an image as another TV, it is clearly inferior to it. Clicktosubmit is pointing out that there are other aspects that affect the "value" of a TV, such as decoration. And you're also saying that it has other aspects that affect its "value", such as decoration. You're agreeing.
posted by bugbread at 4:41 PM on October 1, 2005

It's all about the fashion right?

Sorry, but you're talking to someone who owns a 1964 Buick Wildcat convertible, a 1983 Suzuki GS450T with 11, 000 original miles, and a 1971 Accuphase Stero amplifier.

These are the original antiques, not some gimracked hyper-inflated reproductions, which is what is being flogged here, for the morons who didn't read the frikken article.

If you're gonna create some ersatz cack to extract big bucks from self-involved dipsticks, at least make it mid-fi performance-wise; lest the target market's purchase decisions reveal them as the shallow attention-whores they actually are.

Meanwhile, spare me your smarmy liitle lectures , and hipster proclamations about the one correct gestalt, that shit got old in the fifties, Man.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:47 PM on October 6, 2005

PareidoliaticBoy : "If you're gonna create some ersatz cack to extract big bucks from self-involved dipsticks, at least make it mid-fi performance-wise; lest the target market's purchase decisions reveal them as the shallow attention-whores they actually are."

On what basis do you state that people who purchase a product with low specs but nice aesthetics are shallow attention-whores, and that purchasing those products marks them as such?
posted by bugbread at 1:44 AM on October 7, 2005