Callbuoy 'hand held' VHF radios

[Bajansailor]

I am wondering if anybody on here ever owned one of these beasts?

I was sorting out some old magazines today, and I came across this advert from January 1975 - I suppose it is (sort of) a 'hand held' radio - although it will take two hands really.....

I do not know how much a Callbuoy cost then, but the most basic fixed station VHF radio was approx GBP 200, while the Rolls Royce of VHFs then - the green boxy Sailor - was approximately GBP 800.
And I am guessing that prices have generally gone up about 6 times (?) since 1975.......

And it is not just VHF radios - I remember the first Magellan sat navs cost thousands - while the Navstar Satnav which was cutting edge technology when I bought one at the Southampton Boat Show in 1988 cost me GBP 500.
These Navstars could be fickle, and you could have to wait quite a while for it to acquire enough satellites and produce a fix - I vaguely seem to remember the accuracy was quoted as being within a mile or two (?), which was considered to be quite amazing at the time.

I recently bought a Garmin 72 handheld, probably accurate to a couple of metres, complete with 12V power cable, from West Marine for about US$ 135......

 

[npf1]

I did have a CallBuoy but flogged it on fleaBay a while back. It's actually not a VHF but an emergency SSB that only transmits and receives on 2182 khz. There's a big antenna that comes out of the top and a wire to drop in the water for the ground plane.

 

[jetwake]

Not sure about your statement that prices have gone up by six times since the advert.
I was recently looking at back issues of radio ham magazines and the prices have fallen a lot, right across the board. A VHF set that cost 200 quid in 1982 (quoted in 1982 money) costs aboput 150 now. Similarly, HF sets that cost 800 quid then cost about 800 quid now...radios were wickedly expensive in the good old days.

Great ad for the handy though, thanks for posting.

David

 

[Bajansailor]

Not sure about your statement that prices have gone up by six times since the advert.

Ooops, sorry, in retrospect now I should have said 'inflation' rather than 'prices'.
Which means that in today's money, even the most basic VHF radio was well over GBP 1,000, while a Sailor was over 4k...
And even the satnav I bought 21 years ago would probably be about GBP 1,500 in today's money.
It would be unthinkable now for boats not to have a VHF and GPS, but even 20 years ago these were probably generally regarded as highly desirable rather than absolutely essential.

 

[Refueler]

Spent many years on dad's / others boats without any radio comm's ... no nav gear except a combo Broadcast radio with rotating flat antenna on top for RDF ... and a steering compass of course.

When I 'grew-up' and bought my own boat .. a Nasa Stingray VHF , Stingray Echo-Sounder and Nasa Decca were orders of the day ... magic !!

Handheld radio ???? Blimey wasn't that rich ...

 

[Evenspread]

Re the Callboy:- I believe I still have one in a locker somewhere. Care to make an offer?
Re the comb-over :- bit late for that I'm afraid!

 

[Oldhand]

I am wondering if anybody on here ever owned one of these beasts?

I was sorting out some old magazines today, and I came across this advert from January 1975 - I suppose it is (sort of) a 'hand held' radio - although it will take two hands really.....

I do not know how much a Callbuoy cost then, but the most basic fixed station VHF radio was approx GBP 200, while the Rolls Royce of VHFs then - the green boxy Sailor - was approximately GBP 800.
And I am guessing that prices have generally gone up about 6 times (?) since 1975.......

And it is not just VHF radios - I remember the first Magellan sat navs cost thousands - while the Navstar Satnav which was cutting edge technology when I bought one at the Southampton Boat Show in 1988 cost me GBP 500.
These Navstars could be fickle, and you could have to wait quite a while for it to acquire enough satellites and produce a fix - I vaguely seem to remember the accuracy was quoted as being within a mile or two (?), which was considered to be quite amazing at the time.

I recently bought a Garmin 72 handheld, probably accurate to a couple of metres, complete with 12V power cable, from West Marine for about US$ 135......

The Callbuoy Radio you show was niether VHF Nor SSB. It was a 2182kHz DSB MF transceiver purely designed for distress. It would not be legal to use now as SSB is mandatory at MF & HF frequencies.

 

[Bi111ion]

I did have a CallBuoy but flogged it on fleaBay a while back. It's actually not a VHF but an emergency SSB that only transmits and receives on 2182 khz. There's a big antenna that comes out of the top and a wire to drop in the water for the ground plane.

Old thread I know but found it by searching. A Calbuoy was MF AM, not SSB, 2182kHz.

 

[pvb]

Old thread I know but found it by searching. A Calbuoy was MF AM, not SSB, 2182kHz.

Why? Why reply to a thread which is more than 8 years old? What's the point? Most of the posters on the thread are no longer here anyway. Are you so desperate to post something? If so, start a new thread on any random subject.

 

[Bi111ion]

Presumably other people will find it via Google as well - being around long enough for Google to find. There are not so many web sites describing Callbuoys.

 

[pvb]

Presumably other people will find it via Google as well - being around long enough for Google to find. There are not so many web sites describing Callbuoys.

Doesn't address my question.

 

[jbweston]

Doesn't address my question.

Surely it does?

I guess he posted here for the perfectly sensible reason that he googled 'Callbuoy' and found this thread. So it makes sense to add to the existing knowledge or opinion on the subject rather than start a new thread so anyone (that one internet user who happens to be searching for information on this topic some time in the next eight years) googling 'Callbuoy' will get a more useful hit than he did.

I can't understand the dislike some people have against posts to old threads. If the old thread is on topic, why not add to the existing knowledge and opinion on the subject rather than starting yet another thread where inevitably someone eventually gets round to repeating much of what is on the old one - with the reusult that we end up with hundreds of anchor threads all saying pretty much the same things, albeit in a different order and with varying degrees of religious zealotry.

 

[Arcady]

+1. I think jbweston has a fair point. However I do wonder if threads over a certain age could somehow be highlighted (text colour?) just to make them more obvious.

 

[James_Calvert]

Why? Why reply to a thread which is more than 8 years old? What's the point? Most of the posters on the thread are no longer here anyway. Are you so desperate to post something? If so, start a new thread on any random subject.

But a six year old thread on fixed vhf is OK then?

 

[Bi111ion]

I think there are two attitudes to BBs/ForumsDiscussion sites. One sees them as almost live discussions that will not be looked at after a certain time. The other that they are repositories of information that can be found by search engines, and so are worth updating any time, even if the original participants in the conversation are no longer interested or reading. They both have something to be said for them. I take the latter view. As said above tagging an old thread or tagging when an old thread has been resurrected might be useful. But so often a new thread is started on something that already has had extensive discussion on this forum (and most others), and you end up with duplicate discussions.

 

[jbweston]

I think there are two attitudes to BBs/ForumsDiscussion sites. One sees them as almost live discussions that will not be looked at after a certain time. The other that they are repositories of information that can be found by search engines, and so are worth updating any time, even if the original participants in the conversation are no longer interested or reading. They both have something to be said for them. I take the latter view. As said above tagging an old thread or tagging when an old thread has been resurrected might be useful. But so often a new thread is started on something that already has had extensive discussion on this forum (and most others), and you end up with duplicate discussions.

I agree completely. If someone's of the 'forum as conversation' school, they find reviving years-old conversations pointless. If (like me) you're of the 'forum as archive of information and opinion' school then we don't see the point in breeding unnecessary threads by ignoring the old and starting the same subject anew.

Wouldn't do if we were all the same, I suppose.

 

[pvb]

But a six year old thread on fixed vhf is OK then?

It's obvious that one went over your head...

 

[prv]

So it makes sense to add to the existing knowledge or opinion on the subject

Except he didn’t really add anything, because the correction he was making (MF, and not DSC) had already been made first time round by Oldhand

Pete

 

[Bi111ion]

Surely it does?

I guess he posted here for the perfectly sensible reason that he googled 'Callbuoy' and found this thread. So it makes sense to add to the existing knowledge or opinion on the subject rather than start a new thread so anyone (that one internet user who happens to be searching for information on this topic some time in the next eight years) googling 'Callbuoy' will get a more useful hit than he did.

I can't understand the dislike some people have against posts to old threads. If the old thread is on topic, why not add to the existing knowledge and opinion on the subject rather than starting yet another thread where inevitably someone eventually gets round to repeating much of what is on the old one - with the reusult that we end up with hundreds of anchor threads all saying pretty much the same things, albeit in a different order and with varying degrees of religious zealotry.

Except he didn’t really add anything, because the correction he was making (MF, and not DSC) had already been made first time round by Oldhand

Pete

You are right and I missed that. DSB (of course not DSC). Double Side Band suppressed (or reduced) carrier. Actually I am not sure if it was DSB (A3A or A3J) or AM (A3H) . The changeover was happening in the 1970s. I cant find a specification for the Callbuoy on line.