Another Radio shack first......
 

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-Rare-Bak...QQcmdZViewItem

John

Oh, Prunella...Reckon we oughta send this Rocket Scientist an e-mail telling him cassettes weren't invented til '64, & no, this raydio ISN'T from 1950...LOL...-Sandy G.

THAT'S funny!!! I am 'watching' it to see if he gets any bids. Would ya' think that maybe the paper label on the back and the polarized plug might have given him a clue? :scratch2: Let the buyer beware!

That poor ebayer may be off the track a little but now that I think about it when did that flyin saucer crash in Roswell? That tape player might just have been advanced allien technology available only at Radio Shack.... :smoke:

Plus it has Rat Shack's '90's logo on it in huge letters...AND...it's still a current Crosley model! :rolleyes:

:headscrat that is too funny

I'm sure the idiot doesn't realize that integrated circuit, Chinese radios weren't a common thing in the fifties and sixties too...

"i Believe The Radio Was Sold Around Early 1950 Or Earlier. "
 

Well, since cassettes were only starting to become available, in their most primitive pre-audiophile state, in the early 70's, I belive this guy is either a fargin icehole or a blatent liar.

...neither of which I would consider too a flattering statement.

wait... late breaking news... another quote.

"THE TUBES ARE IN GOOD CONDITION AND IT STILL WORK GREAT."

I'd like to know how he tested them. Did he look to see if they glowed?

(I know, it's solid state.)

Now I'd say he's BOTH of what I called him earlier.

I second the "fargin icehole" comment..... :yes: :scratch2: Rob

Well, looky here! I e-mailed the seller and educated them about the radio they were selling and they replied back...

"You are absolutely right, took back off radio and it is not a tube.
The radio did belong to my great aunt who passed away, and my
brother-in-law said it was a tube radio, bakelite. Why didn't I
research it a little better? Thank you for brining to my attention.
I will correct."

and he did correct it.
 

He was willing to admit and correct his mistakes. Ignorance is not a sin and can be corrected and it was. I take back that fargin icehole statement.

I also retract my "follow-up to what he said" comment on a fargin' icehole!! :banana: :yes: Rob