It’s nice to see big companies can still have a sense of humor …

Who has such humor ? If you’ve never seen this error, you can search for it to find out who gives you a chuckle when the chips are down.

This is a shot from “Life on Mars” (season 1, episode 6, time index 04:34).

What is this a picture of ? …. No, it’s not a picture of a watch … well, technically it is. What’s the big deal ?!

I’ve been debating a question of photo retouching as it relates to factual reporting in the news. Clearly, “adding and removing important content” risks distorting the information conveyed by a photograph. What about retouching such as removing blemishes, correcting color, or altering the lighting / contrast / or levels ?

What brought this to the forefront for me was my post about the Lunar Moth. The event was real. The moth was spread out flat on the grass. I did various cleanup procedures on the image and changed the lighting to better present the moth. Here is the before and after. You get to decide if it was to maintain the photograph’s presentation of fact.

The image was straitened, color corrected, sharpened (perhaps a bit too much), and a faint darkening of the grass under the moth to make it stand out. The most dramatic “touch up” was to repair to all the damage of the wings. It is this last element - in my opinion - that makes this less factual and more “art”. If it were scratches in an old photo, that would be artificial damage and the repairs would be more warranted. In this case, it represents a natural occurrence which the camera captured.

I’m always interested in the application of “supply and demand” when it comes to collectibles, antiques, etc. Anyone who has followed this blog or done any digging through its archives will notice the tower clock project I completed 18 months ago. Shortly after finishing it, I thought I’d really like “just one more”. I started to look around and watched - with growing disappointment - the skyrocketing prices of tower clocks, street clocks, and the like. Two examples make the point. Two clocks, which perhaps 5 years ago would have sold in the range of $2,000 and $6,000 went for $5,200 and $18,400 respectively. So, I guess my Arnold and Lewis really will be my only tower clock. I will appreciated it all that much more. I “got one” which was my real goal for all of those years. I shouldn’t get greedy.

So, this past weekend was another education. I was told about “the old sewing machine we had when I was growing up”. Over the course of a day of phone calls I learned it was not the “Singer Featherweight” but rather a “Singer 301” - to be even more in the weeds, it was a “tan 301 long bed”. It was a workhorse of a machine and if I had one today, I’d be 100% satisfied. So here is where “supply and demand” comes in.

The Singer Featherweight is now a coveted machine. Actually it’s called the 221 and Singer never called it “Featherweight”. Both machines were old school American made, built for 3 lifetimes, but the featherweight weighed 11 lbs whereas the 301 was at least 16lbs - with their cases and accessories they were closer to 18lbs and 25lbs. The featherweight went through very few changes over the 30+ year run - mostly the only thing that changed was the color. It started out black in a black case. It ended up white in a white & foam green case (think June Cleaver). The 301 went from black, to tan, to two-tone tan. The 301 was a big improvement, mechanically, over the featherweight. The motor hung off the back of the 221 and was integral in the 301. Also the 301 was gear driven whereas the 221 had a belt drive. But, the 301, like me and most Americans, put on weight compared to the 221.

The featherweight has become a sought after machine for people who have to luck their sewing machines around. Personally, I would not think that would be a very big crowd - a quick sampling puts total production over 1 million units. So, if supply = 1,000,000 and demand = ‘niche’ it would seem easy to find a feather weight.

The reality of “supply and demand” is in the 5lb difference between the 221 and the 301. It is the difference in commanding $200-$500 per featherweight vs $75-$100 for a 301. The expectation is 301 will grow in popularity and price as the 221 prices climb out of reach.There is only just so much people will pay for that 5lb savings !

It really is interesting in what things depreciate to ‘zero’ over time and which ones rebound to ‘premium’ status.