Radio royalty

[Yorkie]

It was an expensive radio in its day, but then all electrical appliances, records and what not were expensive, due in part to the high rate of Purchase Tax.

It was commonplace to advertise anything which carried Purchase Tax at the net of tax rate. In 1960, the '684' cost £25.7s.11d + PT. Just as now, there re arguments about what level of tax on purchases should be, and what category of goods an item falls into. (Nowadays, food is zero-rated but 'snacks carry 20% VAT - more of that below).   Back in the 1960s, furniture carried a PT rate of just 5% as it was considered a necessity, whereas electrical goods were considered 'luxuries' and carried 50% rate of PT. Hence, a radio cabinet ('furniture') carried 5%, but the chassis inside it carried 50%. If the radio had a BFO, it was considered not a domestic receiver, but a communications receiver, so was zero rated. Electrical 'instruments' - an amplifier for example - carried half the 'luxury rate' - 25% PT.

The upshot of this is that we can reasonably assume that the '684' would have had near enough 50% PT added, which would have upped the retail price from £25.7s2d (say £25.40), to £38. Accounting for the effects of inflation, that equates to £760 today. The cheaper plastic cased '674' with an identical chassis but only one speaker, was £21.7.s11d plus PT = £32.00, equating to £640 today. Certainly more than two weeks wages back then - few ordinary people would have bought such a radio outright, but on HP.

I can't really recall what other sets were on the market in 1960 to offer competition, but yes, I do think this set was towards the top end in terms of features and price, and might well have caught the eye of royalty. Let's not forget that even today, Roberts Radios have the Royal Warrant, and despite the affection that some hold for them, they're unexceptional.   As well as FM, the '684' had a magic eye, partly rotatable ferrite rod so the set didn't have to be angled for best reception, and a built in FM aerial on the back panel. In addition to a large elliptical speaker, it had an extra 4" speaker. Oddly through today's eyes, it had an input from a tape recorder. I can't recall tape recorders that didn't include a built-in amplifier, but I guess there must have been. At almost 2 ft long, it's quite an imposing set.

Drifting right off at a tangent - as we can and sometimes do on here - digressing from radios to taxation, it's interesting (to me anyway) to note how tax on consumer goods has changed over time. VAT was originally a French idea, started in the 1950s. Britain introduced it as part of its condition of joining the European Economic Community. All countries joining the EEC had to replace their indirect taxes with the VAT. In the UK it replaced the Purchase Tax, which was a fairly complex system that had many different rates.  In the early days (as some of us will recall) it was a relatively low level of no more than 10 per cent, with the exception of petrol, and briefly, electrical appliances, which were still deemed in the 1960s to be 'luxuries' and hence, subject to a 25 per cent rate.  However, Heath's Government, when in opposition, had always promised that key essential items, such as books, would not be subject to VAT.

The EEC took a dim view of this but allowed some goods, including books, nearly all food, and utility bills to be "zero rated". This was technically a "transition measure" and some experts believe that Brussels could still insist that these zero-rated items carry VAT, as they do in France, where it 's levied at 7 per cent on books and 5.5 per cent on food.  Since its inception, VAT has changed frequently. In Baroness Thatcher's first term in office, the luxury rate was scrapped and merged into a higher standard rate of 15 per cent, then raised to 17.5 per cent in 1991. In the run up to the 1992 election Sir John Major promised not to "extend the scope of value-added tax", but he did raise utility bills from zero-rated to a new 8 per cent reduced rate. This lower rate was subsequently reduced to 5 per cent by Gordon Brown.

The zero-rating has thrown up endless confusion. Snacks, for instance, carry full VAT because they are deemed to be non-essential. But a peanut in a shell is deemed to be a food, because the consumer needs to "prepare" the nut by shelling it. If a manufacturer has done the shelling for you, it's a snack - 20% VAT.  The two most famous rows have involved chocolate covered treats: Jaffa Cakes and marshmallow teacakes.  HMRC believed that they were both chocolate-covered snacks, but lawyers successfully argued that were both actually cakes - and therefore zero-rated for VAT. (The current tax legislation handbook runs to 3,200 pages just on the subject of VAT).

None of which has anything at all to do with the Murphy A684, which I rather like. If ever I spot one in half decent condition at a sensible price, I'll buy it!

Waffled and dribbled Yorkie, who needs to get out more!