undefined | Better HN

0 pointstombert1y ago0 comments

£850 is actually cheaper than I thought it was, but it's still a bit much for me to justify right now. If I spent a grand on a fidget toy, I think my wife would be pretty mad at me.

Whatever patents that they had have to be expired, I kind of wish someone would make reproductions. I know there's the 3D printed ones, which are cool in their own right, but since 3D printers aren't super precise the parts have to be huge to compensate. I want as close to a one-to-one reproduction as possible, but I guess there's not much money in it.

0 comments

ddulaney1y ago

It doesn’t help that they made an absolute ton of them: something like 140,000! That means that they’re not particularly rare, and it holds the price down.

Add in the fact that authenticity is part of the appeal, plus the fairly expensive process to make a decent replica, it’s not shocking that no replicas have emerged, even though cheap-ish CNCs mean it’s probably easier to do than it ever has been.

MatthiasWandel1y ago

I'm sure they would not have been less than £850 in whatever currency it was sold in back then, inflation adjusted. But the justification was much better than being a fidget toy.

tombertOP1y ago

Oh definitely, prior to having cheap computers that can compute gigaflops, I would definitely have bought one to do number crunching.

The problem is that if I bought one now, it would simply be a toy and nothing else. That's just a bit more than I'm willing to spend.

econ1y ago

Update it with USB so that it can take input and return results. Hook it up to a cash register for something like an antique store. Ideally one selling small items so that the customer can marvel at the display adding things up.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse