RCA Sportable

[jmdocs]

This nifty pic on Shorpy.com is going to generate a lot of snarky comments along the lines of "ha ha! You call that portable?!" But when I look at it, I'm amazed that they managed to actually cram a television set with a screen that large in a case that small c. 1959.

http://www.shorpy.com/node/20230

That said, the guy really could have manned up and held it with one hand just for the length of the exposure--or at least, without his secretary's help!

Jeff M.
Chicago, IL

[Eric H]

I had no idea Doug H was that old!

[Sandy G]

Hehehehe.. RCA, by then, had that line of 8" sets out. I teacher I had in hiskule, had one in his office in 1971-75 when I was there-It was just a rather quaint relic of an earlier day by then. Hard to believe that little TV from so long ago had INSPIRED me to get, so far, 3 of th' Damthings...

[Eric H]

I sent a post to Shorpy with this picture attached and a comment that it weighed 43 pounds (just weighed mine), we'll see if he posts it.

[Electronic M]

He's a vampire! ...I'm surprised you did not know.

Originally Posted by Eric H

I had no idea Doug H was that old!

[Steve D.]

Found this 1960 snapshot of your's truly w/our brand new RCA Victor "portable" tv. I recall it did weigh a lot. My folks also bought a similar size Westinghouse
portable set for their bedroom. The RCA outlasted it by many years.

-Steve D.

[Jeffhs]

That RCA Victor "Sportable" TV looks a lot like the earlier version, the one with only a VHF tuner. The Sportable looks like it's set up for all-channel reception; otherwise, it looks almost exactly like the earlier set.

BTW, the reasons these TVs weighed so much were because a, they were metal-cased sets, and b, they had a power transformer with a 5U4 rectifier. My aunt had one of the VHF-only sets, and hers weighed the proverbial ton. I'm sure these TVs all came with a stand for that reason. One could get a hernia in no time flat lifting a TV like this the wrong way.

[Sandy G]

Seems like people were virtually ALWAYS "Dressed Up" back then. Dunno how they stood it, A/C units were a LOT "Further & Far Between" then. Maybe EVERYWHERE wasn't quite as hot & sticky as we are in NE Tennessee.

[rca2000]

It was a different WORLD then Sandy. people were just FAR More "tough and self-sufficent" then...NOT constantly whining about things and demanding someone ELSE take care of things for them--like today... and they ALSO wanted to look NICE__pretty much EVERYWHERE they went too..

[Username1]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

Seems like people were virtually ALWAYS "Dressed Up" back then. Dunno how they stood it, A/C units were a LOT "Further & Far Between" then. Maybe EVERYWHERE wasn't quite as hot & sticky as we are in NE Tennessee.

Yah, but look how thin they all are.... In good shape and thin, you don't feel
quite so bad in the heat. When I started really working in the sun all the
time, and lost a few tons myself, I loved the heat, didn't need, or want A/C.

Different times too. People cared about how the looked, much more than
today.... AssHoles like the Jersey Shore crowd would hide back then or get
stoned to death..... As it should be..... Today slobs are an entire culture, not
a sub culture.... Probly people who dress well are the sub culture today....
Where's my time machine dammit ! I love photos like that....

.

[wa2ise]

Well, don't forget that taking pictures back then wasn't painless like it is now. You had to buy film, take pictures, have no real idea if the pictures will come out until you submit the film to the developers and wait a week or so to get pictures you could look at. So people would see picture taking as a special event and get dressed up for it.

As for "portable" we had this tape machine

which had a handle but weighed about 50 pounds...

[Sandy G]

I remember what a Big Deal it was in the Seventies when PANTS started being OK for women to wear... My Mom & her friends argued LONG & HARD over wearing "Slacks" to church.. Of course, they DID, & the World didn't come to an end, either.. Now, a gal in a dress is RARE..

[wa2ise]

Well, one thing where today is better is most everyone showers daily, and wash their clothes more often. Less BO.

[zeno]

Well said. My mother wouldnt be caught dead at
mass without a fine dress, veil, hat & gloves. We had to wear
nice cloths & bow tie. Now they wear rags. Only the poor
folk dress nice now. We had a dress code at school. Rules as
to hair, cloths, shoes & more. Then the hippies came along &
got things changed. Now school looks like a bunch of rats &
prostitots.......

73 Zeno

Originally Posted by rca2000

It was a different WORLD then Sandy. people were just FAR More "tough and self-sufficent" then...NOT constantly whining about things and demanding someone ELSE take care of things for them--like today... and they ALSO wanted to look NICE__pretty much EVERYWHERE they went too..

[Sandy G]

Originally Posted by zeno

Well said. My mother wouldnt be caught dead at
mass without a fine dress, veil, hat & gloves. We had to wear
nice cloths & bow tie. Now they wear rags. Only the poor
folk dress nice now. We had a dress code at school. Rules as
to hair, cloths, shoes & more. Then the hippies came along &
got things changed. Now school looks like a bunch of rats &
prostitots.......

73 Zeno

Hehehe... That's where us Presbyterians had it over you Catholics.. No veil, hat & gloves... Altho I remember the REALLY elderly ladies wore hats. Me & my sister stopped our Aunt from wearing a Hat. She came in one Sunday, had this chapeau on, that HONESTLY looked like somethin' Stan Laurel, or Ish Kabibble might have had on... Me & Mary Lou looked at each other, & both started Hee-Hawing. The people in the row in front of us asked what was goin' on, my Dad told 'em-HE was laughin', too, & then THEY started. I'm sure Susan's hat was Megabux, she ALWAYS spent a lot on clothes, but SOMEBODY shoulda had A Little Talk w/her..She NEVER wore it again, as well as I remember...