Ethical vs. unethical system restoration?

[JSR]

Hi all,

An interesting question for the group -- Over the summer, I picked up a fairly large haul of Apple II systems. In going through them, it seems clear that many of the systems were modified/board-swapped at some point in their lives...For example, i've got one case that's clearly late 70's, but it has a motherboard from the early 80's...and vice-versa; a case from the early 80's with a motherboard from the late 70's.

In restoring these systems, I've tried to stay true with whatever motherboard the system originally came with, even if it was not period-accurate. What's the general consensus out there, among other people restoring these systems? Is it better to preserve what's found as-is, or, is it considered acceptable to reunite a chassis and motherboard from roughly the same timeframe, for the sake of historical accuracy? Is it misrepresentation to pair an older motherboard with an older case, or simply proper restoration work? What is your opinion?

 

[Plasma]

How can the motherboard the system originally came with not be "period accurate"? If somebody has changed the motherboard in the past, it's not the original motherboard.

Unless the computer was owned by someone of historical significance, I don't see the benefit of keeping it "as found."

It's sort of like restoring a classic car that had an aftermarket tape deck installed in the 90s. There's no reason to keep the mismatched stereo, unless Eddie Van Halen installed it...

 

[Gary C]

I would not try to maintain as found, together a system that had already been messed with. Eg if I had a system with a newer motherboard but I just happened to also have one from the correct period, I would put them together.

 

[daver2]

Ditto - unless the machine was of a major historical value "as is"...

Dave

 

[whartung]

But at the same time, if you start running out of proper combinations, not everyone is buying these things because they want "matching serial numbers". Some folks are buying them because they want an operational machine to play with. So, keeping them period accurate can be important, but sometimes just have an "apple looking thing" that takes "apple disks" is good enough.

 

[Eudimorphodon]

Personally I appreciate having some of the original patina and provenance on my machines, if any of it is ”interesting”, anyway. A swapped motherboard on its own probably just means it was repaired, probably professionally, so I guess that doesn’t fall into the interesting category.

What I do find stupid and eyeroll-worthy is when someone actually brain-damages a working machine with interesting modifications in the name of trying to turn it back into a “museum piece” of negligible functionality. Poster boy for this is taking an early Macintosh that was lovingly third-party hacked with additional memory, maybe a SCSI card, etc, and stripping it all out to try to turn in back into a pristine factory-fresh 128k unit. barf. There are plenty of chucked-in-closet-for-thirty-years Mac 128s already sitting on pedestals, a unit that was loved and needed and upgraded for years to try to make/keep it useful is far more interesting and actually has a story to tell.

 

[jafir]

While not as interesting as upgrades to a Mac 128, in a similar spirit, I've got an IBM 5150, not an early example by any definition, but at some point it was upgraded with a quadram card with the extra I/O thing that hangs off the back, an EGA card, a hard drive, and a larger power supply. If I were going to have a "museum piece" I would want this one sitting there, next to an all original one, showing what were some common upgrades that allowed people to get longer, more convenient uses from their old computers back then.

 

[JSR]

For my own $0.02, my gut instinct is, if i find a 1978 chassis with a 1982 motherboard in it, it's not unethical to replace that motherboard with one from 1978.

The thing is, back in the day, you could actually buy a motherboard from Apple without a case, early on---so even if its a knock-off case, that board is actually original to that system. Its actually kind of the opposite problem---in re-homing that board to an actual Apple chassis, you're removing from its original home.

 

[oldpcguy]

I'll throw in my two cents in agreement with those who say to match, as closely as possible, same year period components together. That's what I would be doing. In fact I have an Apple II Plus with a bad power supply (posted about it elsewhere) and I am trying to decide if I should take the trouble to fix it or purchase another, period specific, power supply for it. Even though it's not a collector system I am leaning towards fixing it as I'd like to keep it as original as possible.

 

[grimm]

For me it's all about what you want out of this hobby. Personally I like to have the system as original as possible, even including the box and ephemera. I want to have the same experience as when the system came out and you opened the box to see the it for the first time. This is my choice, I can see where others might not want to do that. If it makes you happy with the hobby, more power to you.

 

[Gary C]

Though its meant to be about fun and interest and not about money and I suspect some of the need for 'originality' is driven by price in some cases.

 

[A-ko]

If it retains the original functionality of whatever model it is, then I see no reason to take issue with it.

If you were restoring an early IIe that had been enhanced later in life, would you undo that?

I really think the only time to be THAT nitpicky is if its a model of paricular significance. A ventless Apple II? That should be as accurate as possible. One of hundreds of thousands of Apple II plus'? who cares. If it's a working computer in the end, and not at the scrapyard, that's what matters.

 

[Eudimorphodon]

One of hundreds of thousands of Apple II plus'? who cares. If it's a working computer in the end, and not at the scrapyard, that's what matters.

It is definitely worth calling out that as much as obsessed fanboys fret about the minuscule differences that exist between the various motherboard revisions and apply arbitrary eBay prices to them at the time Apple considered everything after Rev. 1 (*) completely interchangeable. It’s completely possible someone taking a 1981 vintage IIplus in for repairs could end up with a refurbished 1978 motherboard, functionally they’re all identical.

(* This asterisk is here because I kind of wonder if an authorized service center might have had rules against putting pre-RFI-mod boards into machines made after whatever the FCC date was for class B compliance; I think that was mid-1981 or so. But an independent shop almost certainly wouldn’t care.)