12-20-2018, 10:53 PM
Oh, and regarding "Type 42"...that reminds me of something.
Back when Antique Radio Classified was the hottest thing in the hobby, ARC's then-owner employed an editor who INSISTED on not only partially rewriting any articles submitted by anyone, but especially in referring to tubes as "Type 42" instead of just "a 42 tube" or "42". I recall this used to drive my old friend Doug Houston (RIP) crazy.
And when you think about it, an article that names off the tube complement of a radio with the redundant "Type" (i.e. Type 39/44, Type 36, Type 75, Type 42, Type 80) does get old after reading it for awhile. I think Doug was spot on in his disagreement with this practice.
Back when Antique Radio Classified was the hottest thing in the hobby, ARC's then-owner employed an editor who INSISTED on not only partially rewriting any articles submitted by anyone, but especially in referring to tubes as "Type 42" instead of just "a 42 tube" or "42". I recall this used to drive my old friend Doug Houston (RIP) crazy.
And when you think about it, an article that names off the tube complement of a radio with the redundant "Type" (i.e. Type 39/44, Type 36, Type 75, Type 42, Type 80) does get old after reading it for awhile. I think Doug was spot on in his disagreement with this practice.
--
Ron Ramirez
Ferdinand IN
![[-]](https://philcoradio.com/phorum/images/bootbb/collapse.png "[-]")
