fingerz

bestkeptsecret said:

Looks like Wozniak's signature devalued the item!!

Seriously though, I think the "professionally restored" and "almost all period-correct components" had a hand in fetching a lesser value than the other Apple-Is that were sold.

Why would those two negatively impact the price? Apple-1’s aren’t like vintage cars where some collectors prefer “barn finds” that have lots of patina. I got this board back to where 95% components were the correct make, part, and date code for this type of Apple-1. The majority of remaining Apple-1’s don’t have all period correct components while still being able to run reliably for hours on end. There are a few exceptions, including my other Apple-1 which is in mint “as new” condition and runs great.

Having spoken to the several of the bidders in this auction, the factors affecting price were mainly due it being an incomplete set: no original manuals, no original cassette interface, no clear history of how/when it was first sold. Those are perfectly reasonable factors and our expectations going into the auction were for a target price of USD 300K+, and we achieved that. The benefit of using eBay is that the hammer price and my net take-home amount are basically the same. I didn’t have to pay a 10% seller’s commission and miss out on the 25% buyer’s premium traditional auction houses charge. Basically the net proceeds are about average, and much more than what I paid for this board just nine months ago. If the second bidder above $400K had managed to get their bid in, then my net would have been well above average.

coreycohen said:

This unit was a condition of 6.5 out of 10.  The unit that sold for $736,862 was a higher condition.  That a major reason for the differences in price.  Provenance also affects the price if the unit belonged to someone important in the computer industry.  

I’m pretty important in the computer industry…