Sony historic 1956 early transistor radio Japan TR-6 vintage Sony Boy Hoffman solar

[@palipixel]

Some anxious & impatient customers often claimed that "SONY" was an acronym for "Soon Only Not Yet."

[@nicholaskalogris9985]

Great that you feature products that were made with quality in mind.

[@monteceitomoocher]

Nice little video, retired engineer here, did a lot of Sony products but even I've never seen these really early models, great company to work for way back, like one big family, all gone now unfortunately.

[@joelima201]

Sony , that's no baloney ! Good info on the TR-6's and the Hoffman . I personally have two ivory and one green .

[@nicholaskalogris9985]

Sony had a knack for making products that looked and sounded good. Would love to see that attention to detail come back.

[@stanleybest8833]

RS ( Radio Shack ) was another common transistor found across brands. Philco made transistors in Pennsylvania.

[@philippeory9165]

I am in Belgium and I really like your videos, very professional and interesting. Remember, I bought you a red SONY 1R-81 a few years ago...

[@Mike1614YT]

that ending wasn't expected, but I guess he needed to talk about that

[@collectornet]

Many of my endings are unexpected.

[@Mahoromatic]

This little radio has the same name as the classic Triumph TR6.

[@WOFFY-qc9te]

My Dad 'Mike' called his "The Yellow Peril" , lovely sports car at home on the narrow country roads where you can open it up and enjoy the Dorset countryside whilst being serenaded by the straight six ....... Chased a Yamaha R1 for ten miles whilst testing the brakes.

[@Mahoromatic]

@@WOFFY-qc9te I figure it was a pretty good ride for what it was. British cars tend to be notoriously iffy unfortunately.

[@WOFFY-qc9te]

@@Mahoromatic It was a great design but Triumphs worst mistake was the steel clips securing the chrome over the weld seams which damaged the paint so the rust go it such a poor idea. The fuel injection was new to garages who could not tune it. Dad came down from an afternoon nap and found son had dismantled the injector pump. Easy fix when you knew the problem, the the old girl would hit first time much to Dads relief. Happy days

[@defaultuserid1559]

I always learn something from your videos and one of the things I've learned is that most of my collection is junk from a design standpoint. Too much Panasonic and not enough Sony.

[@collectornet]

Not so fast! Panasonic made quite a few beautiful designs. You can see some of them in other videos on this channel. Unlike many companies that started out making beautiful things then cheapened them down, Panasonic's attention to design increased as the '60s progressed. I'm working on some videos now that take a look at some of the truly bland radios (and there were many). These are mostly off brands from Hong Kong and radios from the profit-first American brands as they offshored production beginning in the early '60s and beyond. These sorts of radios in my collection are not the best by any means, but even then, they are not junk--and neither are yours!

[@1McMurdoSilver]

Nice set...

[@ProfessorEchoMedia]

Nice to hear some patented CollectorNet common sense and shared enthusiasm on this sad day for the world.

[@collectornet]

Thank you... and amen.

[@hattree]

Standard Oil of New York did use the initials, but the Japanese company is unrelated as you state.

[@Gluttonite]

Do you collect any modern radios also?

[@collectornet]

Sometimes. Not very often.

[@gregcarnes80]

​@@collectornetI go out to flea markets and antique shops. I have seen a few older radios... there is no comparison. The newer ones look so cheap and boxee.

[@JamieWoods-go1cv]

No CONLRAD Cival Defense marks?

[@collectornet]

There was no plan to export this radio to the US, so no need for them.

[@bobwigg761]

@@collectornetI do see them on the Hoffman version.

[@collectornet]

Those were intended for the US market. You know, I never noticed that detail difference in the Sony and Hoffman.

[@bobconnolly1614]

Thanks for another interesting and informative video, Eric…but, as a retired scientist, I think your view of the scientific method is somewhat limiting 🤓

[@collectornet]

Of course it is! I'm expressing the laymen's view of the scientific method, as taught to us all by schoolteachers doing their best and tasked with teaching a new way of thinking that they barely understood (if at all). I said: "beginning with the baby boom generation, American public schools began teaching the "scientific method," or rather a kind of simplistic version of it. This, like the so-called "new math," was intended to upgrade the American education system to help us keep up with the Rooskies who were, we were assured, out to get us. In this scientific method, as we understood it, a guess we might make about something.. was entitled to an automatic upgrade to a new, more sciencey word, hypothesis. And we were encouraged to do this, to posit such hypotheses. Then, by the same token, when a hypothesis was expressed, it was automatically bumped up to an 'assertion.' THEN it's up to those hearing the assertion to challenge it, if they want, while in the meantime the original guesser gets to go around thinking he said something true or real." This is how this layman remembers it being taught to him. And how I have witnessed this simplistic understand being misused by others of my generation in the years since to support whatever tall tale they had to tell.

[@bobconnolly1614]

@ Thanks for your thoughtful response…I can certainly see your point. During my HS education in the 60s I guess I was fortunate to have been taught that the purpose of forming an hypothesis was to test it through experimentation to determine if it was valid. The hypothesis can then be accepted or rejected accordingly. Either way, something is learned and a way forward (more hypotheses and experimentation) is established. Hypotheses, or as you say, assertions, must always be tested. That is the whole point of the scientific method…

[@collectornet]

Yes, the TESTING. This is the essential. But what comes next for some people is a blend of laziness and faith. Testing is hard. Opinions are easy. So many are willing to call their opinions "testing" and if/when they ever do any real testing are willing to let "faith" fill in when testing fails to provide the answer they wanted. And all this is done under the delusion that they are using the "scientific method."

[@kenkellalea329]

I listen to radio very loud dangerously loud till mother tells me to shut the hell up

[@Madness832]

*Otherwise known as BS.