1984 Mac 128K eBay ad seems off?

Discussion in 'Apple Collectors' started by that-ben, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. that-ben macrumors newbie

    that-ben

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    Hi 1984 experts!

    I'm looking at this eBay ad and something seems off. It says it's an original Mac from May of 1984 (21th week) and they state the serial number is F4217BNM0001 which looks fine, but the photo of the case has the red 128K badge on it. On Wikipedia, it's clearly stated that this red 128K badge was put on new original Macs starting from november 1984. I'm 99% convinced they did not mix the pictures from another ad, because in the description they talk about the UV fading of the stickers, which are visible on many of the pictures in the ad, including the one on which the red 128K badge is visible. How is this even possible then?

    http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Apple-Macint...AL-128K-WORKING-SIGNATURES-RARE-/162601593326
     
  2. MacTech68 macrumors 68000

    MacTech68

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Location:
    Australia, Perth
    #2
    It's highly likely that this machine has had it's rear cover replaced or swapped during it's 30 odd years of existence.

    With the serial number under the front edge of the front panel, then the rear case could be swapped for a later model.

    Let's say, it was an original 128K (as per the serial number). At some point early on, it was upgraded to a 512k, 512ke or a Plus. Then, many years later somebody buys a bad looking 128k and a Plus that was an original 128 upgraded. The boards and case parts are combined to create this 128 (with a slightly later rear case.

    Note that the pictured keyboard definitely has platinum key caps and a platinum curly cord.

    Also, if it actually runs the 800K floppy drive, it certainly doesn't have it's original ROMs.

    Is it a "fake" ? Not really, unless it's being sold as a genuine, untouched, as factory shipped item.
     
  3. that-ben thread starter macrumors newbie

    that-ben

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Location:
    Canada
    #3
    You're right, I haven't even gone far enough as to see that weird detail. It's definitely a frankenstein model and certainly not an original 21th week 128K. Thanks for your input.
     

Share This Page