Things you don't see anymore

[jonab 1,644]

One of the main reasons for m/waved food tasting different to conventionally cooked is that (as has been said) the microwave depends entirely on the heating of water molecules and thus does not reach higher than 100°C - i.e it boils whatever it is cooking. This produces an entirely different flavour to that obtained with the higher temperatures encountered in baking, roasting and frying where different chemical reactions take place.

[TBI 2,351]

We started selling microwave ovens as soon as they became available in 1977. The first we got were Panasonics, very big and heavy, cost over £300. They were expensive but all electricals were then, relative to todays prices. Thank goodness for the never never!

[Cliff Ton 10,457]

Re: TBI's comment about electricals being expensive in the past......I saw this a while ago which demonstrates the point, especially televisions.

 

[Brew 5,408]

I don't get it, when were vacuum cleaner ever the equivalent of £1500?

[Cliff Ton 10,457]

I agree; I posted it but I'm not sure about some of the numbers.

 

I certainly couldn't explain the massive drop in vacuum cleaner prices between 1970 and 80.

[denshaw 2,871]

I heard on radio that the most popular size TV is now 70 inches.

[TBI 2,351]

The stats do look a bit suspect. I've never had anything to do with cameras so can't comment and 'stereos' is a very wide-ranging and unspecific term. I don't understand the spike in cleaners in 1970, there was no reason for it. Amongst the most popular vacuums during the '70s were the Hoover Senior and Junior uprights about £80 and £60 respectively and from the mid-70s Electrolux 500 was the market's biggest seller and cost £80, or over £600 in todays money.

 

Average colour tv costs in the '70s were about £300 for a 22in. Up to £600 for the largest  26in in fancy cabinets, I think that works out over six grand today. Laundry isn't shown but a standard Hoover automatic washer was about £250, that's about todays average but allowing for inflation nearly £2000. Phew!

[Cliff Ton 10,457]

The other big factor in television prices is that back in the 60s and 70s most people rented a TV,  very few people owned one. Presumably because many people couldn't afford the purchase price back then.

 

I don't remember that being the case with other electrical items.

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

1 hour ago, denshaw said:

heard on radio that the most popular size TV is now 70 inches.

Not in this house, denshaw! Zero inches. Got rid of it years ago and don't miss it.

[Cliff Ton 10,457]

Coincidentally, today John Lewis have announced they will no longer be selling stand-alone DVD players. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45950477

[TBI 2,351]

1 hour ago, Cliff Ton said:

The other big factor in television prices is that back in the 60s and 70s most people rented a TV,  very few people owned one. Presumably because many people couldn't afford the purchase price back then.

 

I don't remember that being the case with other electrical items.

That's very true CT, probably rental accounted for the larger share but many, many people saw that in the longer-term buying on credit made more sense, assuming they could afford the deposit and payments of course. I worked for a major player at the time, we didn't rent and believe me sales demand for colour tv was huge in the '70s.

 

There were various companies that also rented domestic appliances, especially washing machines, the likes of Wigfalls, Rumbelows and many independents.

 

 

PS... Just seen the John Lewis decision snippet on the news, they showed a Blu-ray player with a price of, can you believe £1299. No bloody wonder!

[loppylugs 8,427]

1 hour ago, Cliff Ton said:

The other big factor in television prices is that back in the 60s and 70s most people rented a TV,  very few people owned one. Presumably because many people couldn't afford the purchase price back then.

 

I don't remember that being the case with other electrical items.

My grandma bought a 12 inch Echo tv back in 1953, mainly for the coronation.  First tv I ever saw.  I think it cost about 100 pounds.  A lot of money back then.

 

At the risk of thread drift.  Another issue with microwaves is mobile phones, which use around the same frequency as mwave ovens.  A lot of learned papers have been written about the threat of cancer from holding such a phone against your head.  I avoid prolonged use of mine.  If I think I will be on it for a while I plug in a headset.  Considering the zombie behaviour I see in the streets they do affect brain function in some way.  

[philmayfield 6,115]

3 hours ago, denshaw said:

I heard on radio that the most popular size TV is now 70 inches.

41 minutes ago, TBI said:

That's very true CT, probably rental accounted for the larger share but many, many people saw that in the longer-term buying on credit made more sense, assuming they could afford the deposit and payments of course. I worked for a major player at the time, we didn't rent and believe me sales demand for colour tv was huge in the '70s.

 

There were various companies that also rented domestic appliances, especially washing machines, the likes of Wigfalls, Rumbelows and many independents.

PS... Just seen the John Lewis decision snippet on the news, they showed a Blu-ray player with a price of, can you believe £1299. No bloody wonder!

 

Back in those days there were a lot of ‘slot’ televisions where people paid to view and the surplus could be spent on other domestic items on a revolving credit basis where the ‘tallyman’ came round weekly to collect the money and sell more goods. One such company was Midorco based in Radford. Besides Wigfalls, Alex Owen were also big players in this game. There were other similar big names in other towns. Phillips electrical had a stake in these as a means of selling their products. East Midlands Personal Finance, which was part owned by Phillips and based in Nottingham handled the HP business for major electrical retailers throughout the British Isles.

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

Only use my mobile for emergencies. Very few people have the number and 99% of the time it's switched off. Don't own a smartphone, wouldn't have one as a gift. I'm a dinosaur!!!  

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

Our first tv was a Bush, in a cabinet. I was more fascinated by the little white dot than anything else it did! I've never been much of a tv viewer. Prefer to read a book or listen to/play music.

[philmayfield 6,115]

Our first TV  was a Pye free standing console model with the speaker below. It had a 9inch screen. A black screen in fact, which was revolutionary at the time. I think that would have been around the time of the Coronation as the chap next door, who was a bit of an electronics expert, was building his own television from scratch. He didn’t finish it in time to view the Coronation and wanted to see it on ours but we had to turn him away as we already had a full house for the show!

[loppylugs 8,427]

15 minutes ago, Jill Sparrow said:

Only use my mobile for emergencies. Very few people have the number and 99% of the time it's switched off. Don't own a smartphone, wouldn't have one as a gift. I'm a dinosaur!!!  

There is a word for us, Jill.  Luddites.  

 

I sure like electricity for the organ though.  I'd hate to have to pump the thing..

 

Edited to add.  This thread is so enjoyable.  Nottstalgia at its best.

[Brew 5,408]

Radio frequency (and visible light) are  low energy, non-ionising and lack the ability to damage DNA. For cancers to form, a carcinogen needs to damage DNA.

There are many studies of mobile phones  and their effect on users health, no correlation with cancer has ever been found.

I've heard many argue that phones "boil your eyes", "they cause brain damage" and even that WiFi (being radio waves) is the same. It's always "they say" but never any empirical evidence unless you can count something you read in the Sun.

[loppylugs 8,427]

I agree it is a none ionizing form of radiation Brew, unlike Xrays etc.

 

However their have been reports of Glioma's next to a person's ear so there are some questions.  I don't write this to try to draw you into an argument, because I realize there are conflicting views on both sides of the issue.  It just seems that we are dealing with a medium that is very new to humanity.  (A radio source held very close to the head)  Thus we need to be alert and open to possible effects that we had not thought of.

 

I'm sure the mobile phone companies are not interested in any research.  we are talking big money here.

[Brew 5,408]

Thinking about  it Loppy and the big money aspect I would say phone manufactures are taking the research very seriously, consider the law suits if a causal link were to be found.

[loppylugs 8,427]

I'm saying this a bit tongue in cheek, but I'll bet somewhere in the agreement we sign for a phone there is some very small print that says,  'We are not responsible for any damage resulting from the use of our products.'

[Brew 5,408]

That's a bet I'll not take, who reads T&C's when we sign for things...

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

1 hour ago, loppylugs said:

There is a word for us, Jill.  Luddites.  

 

I just like to keep things simple and have no interest in acquiring the latest gizmo just because everyone else has one. I'm not acquisitive...except when it comes to moggies!

[philmayfield 6,115]

I couldn’t survive without my smartphone. All the news, my emails, satnav, maps, speed cameras, personal encyclopaedia, traffic holdups, talk to someone at my door if I’m away from home, barcode scanner, flashlight, altimeter, checking where our cars are, paying for parking, weather forecast, camera. I hardly use the telephone facilty - only for urgent messages. It makes life so much easier. We also have 4 cats! 

[denshaw 2,871]

Penny for the Guy.