A 1975 Sears Catalog

by Don Boudreaux on January 26, 2006

in Standard of Living

I just made my first purchase using eBay: I bought a Fall/Winter 1975 Sears catalog. (I paid $2.99 for the catalog and $13-something to have it shipped to me by FedEx.)

This catalog was issued at the start of my senior year in high school. I have decent memories of the mid-70s. Perusing this Sears catalog confirms my sense that my recollection of those days is pretty good.

The days themselves, however, were — compared to today — not so good.

Other than the style differences, the fact most noticeable from the contents of this catalog’s 1,491 pages is what the catalog doesn’t contain. The Sears customer in 1975 found no CD players for either home or car; no DVD or VHS players; no cell phones; no televisions with remote controls or flat-screens; no personal computers or video games; no food processors; no digital cameras or camcorders; no spandex clothing; no down comforters (only comforters filled with polyester).

Of course, some of what was available to Sears’ customers in 1975 is also quite noticeable to those of us looking back from 2006: typewriters, turntables for stereo systems, 8-track players, black-and-white television sets.  And lots and lots of clothing and bedding made from polyester.

The lowest-priced electronic calculator available in this catalog set the citizen of 1975 back $13.88 – it had a whopping six digits of display and could add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

Also available were microwave ovens, ranging in price from $189.95 to $439.95.

Of course, there’s been a good deal of dollar inflation since 1975. Judged by changes in the consumer-price index, what $100 bought in 1975 takes about $354 to buy today. So that six-digit calculator would today cost about $49. Sears lowest-priced microwave oven in 1975 would today set you back $672.

Here are some other 1975 products and their 1975 prices (along with their inflation-adjusted 2006 prices):

Sears Best kitchen range, $589.95 ($2,088).

Sears Best television, $749.95 ($2,655)

Sears Best black and white television, $137.95 ($488)

Sears Best typewriter, $278.99 ($988)

Sears Best motion-picture camera (no sound; but it did have 8X zoom!), $197.00 ($697)

Sears lowest-cost telephone answering machine, $99.50 ($352)

Sears highest-priced tent for four adults, $84.88 ($300)

But inflation is difficult to calculate. In a later post, I’ll take a page from the work of Michael Cox and Richard Alm and ask: how many hours did the American production worker have to work in 1975 to buy things from the Sears catalog? And how many hours must the average production worker today work if he were to buy 2006 versions of these things?

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

Add a Comment    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 29 comments }

josh January 26, 2006 at 3:36 pm

That's a great idea. Good post.

John Pertz January 26, 2006 at 4:42 pm

This type of analysis is the second best argument for free market economics right behind Public choice economics.

asg January 26, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Well, yes and no — it's also an argument for the idea that a mixed economy, which the U.S. certainly has had since 1975, albeit not to the extent that European countries have, does not harm productivity and technological progress very much.

John P. January 26, 2006 at 7:27 pm

Yes, in many ways the '70s were not so good. I was in high school in the mid-1970s. Recently, I was having a conversation with a depressed colleague who is about 20 years younger than I am. He seemed very concerned about the future of the US economy, where work would come from, how we would compete, etc., and he was surprised at my optimism. I pointed out to him that, since he was born in 1981, the recent (mini) recession is the first down-turn he's ever been aware of. I, by contrast, was in high school and college in the 1970s. I know firsthand how bleak things can be (much much worse than they are now), and how completely unimaginable then was the prosperity that would follow in the '80s and '90s.

John Pertz January 26, 2006 at 8:38 pm

"Well, yes and no — it's also an argument for the idea that a mixed economy, which the U.S. certainly has had since 1975, albeit not to the extent that European countries have, does not harm productivity and technological progress very much."

Or maybe its a sign that markets are able to work pretty well even though they are heavily regulated. The real question is can they work even better without the regulation. My answer would be yes but I have a feeling that you might disagree. The thing that scares me about proponents of interventionism is that it is hard to reduce heavy amounts of it once it really begins to sink its teeth in. And once heavy amounts of regulation are achieved it is hard to reform through the political process because there will always be short run losers. Look at China during the begining of its liberalization. Nobody would dare argue that it wasnt succesful and good for China in the long run but there were and are difficulties in moving from communism to a more liberalized set of affairs. It is hard to get people to look beyond their short run interests which is exactly the requirement for liberalization.

Another point that I would like to make abount mixed economies, especialy the heavily regulated ones(France and Germany), is that they seem to lose functionality as they grow bigger. The most succesful welfare state is certainly Norway and I dont think its fare to propose their governments operating plan for large economies for several reasons. The first reason is that they are politicaly and ethnicaly homognized. Egalitarianism is deeply rooted in their societie's culture so there is a desire for public officials to act in the public interest. Another caveat that I would like to mention is that much of the states wealth comes from the sale of oil on the world market. The great majority of nations have to figure out other ways to grow wealthy besides the sale of raw commodities which are not dependant on creativity and the incentive to create.

John Pertz January 26, 2006 at 8:45 pm

"Well, yes and no — it's also an argument for the idea that a mixed economy, which the U.S. certainly has had since 1975, albeit not to the extent that European countries have, does not harm productivity and technological progress very much."

Or maybe its a sign that markets are able to work pretty well even though they are heavily regulated. The real question is can they work even better without the regulation. My answer would be yes but I have a feeling that you might disagree. The thing that scares me about proponents of interventionism is that it is hard to reduce heavy amounts of it once it really begins to sink its teeth in. And once heavy amounts of regulation are achieved it is hard to reform through the political process because there will always be short run losers. Look at China during the begining of its liberalization. Nobody would dare argue that it wasnt succesful and good for China in the long run but there were and are difficulties in moving from communism to a more liberalized set of affairs. It is hard to get people to look beyond their short run interests which is exactly the requirement for liberalization.

Another point that I would like to make abount mixed economies, especialy the heavily regulated ones(France and Germany), is that they seem to lose functionality as they grow bigger. The most succesful welfare state is certainly Norway and I dont think its fare to propose their governments operating plan for large economies for several reasons. The first reason is that they are politicaly and ethnicaly homognized. Egalitarianism is deeply rooted in their societie's culture so there is a desire for public officials to act in the public interest. Another caveat that I would like to mention is that much of the states wealth comes from the sale of oil on the world market. The great majority of nations have to figure out other ways to grow wealthy besides the sale of raw commodities which are not dependant on creativity and the incentive to create.

KirkH January 26, 2006 at 8:49 pm

If we had gold backed currency it stands to reason that we'd be in the midst of accelerating deflation due to accelerating productivity gains. If interest rates are already low and a housing bubble pop or other issues create a recession what else can the Fed do?

Tom D. January 26, 2006 at 9:50 pm

The constant comments I hear and read about stagnant income growth since 1975 ignore the vast improvement in the goods and services available. I don't think many people would take a large pay increase and only have the 1975 market basket of goods available to them.

On the other hand, there is one good I consume almost every day that has not improved – the government run rail system. My commuter line almost exclusively employs equipment that was in service in 1975. No significant upgrade is contemplated and management doesn't seem to worried about competitive pressures to improve service.

LowcountryJoe January 26, 2006 at 10:11 pm

"Inflation!", you say?

“There are still more trillions of dollars being promised in Social Security pensions and Medicare payments, for which there is not enough money in the till. It is like writing checks without enough money in the bank to redeem them.

“Present members of Congress win votes by promising such goodies. That leaves it up to future members of Congress to figure out how to welsh on those promises, which could not be met without jacking up tax rates to unprecedented levels.

“Even that probably wouldn't provide enough money, since confiscatory tax rates confiscate the incentives needed to keep the economy going. An alternative political ploy would be to pay people the amount of money that was promised but in dollars so inflated that they won't buy anything close to what dollars bought when they were paid into the Social Security system.” ~ Dr. Thomas Sowell in an editorial from January 24, 2006

Government Revenue From Inflation
“Financing government spending by increasing the quantity of money looks like magic, like getting something for nothing. To take a simple example, the government builds a road, paying for it in newly printed Federal Reserve notes. It looks as if everyone is better off. The workers who built the road to get their pay and can buy food, clothing, and now a road where there was none before. Who has really paid for it?

“The answer is that all holders of money have paid for the road. The extra money that is printed raises prices when it is used to induce the workers to build the road instead of engage in some other productive activity. Those higher prices are maintained as the extra money circulates in the spending stream from the workers to the sellers of what they buy, from those sellers to others, and so on…

“Inflation may also yield revenue indirectly by automatically raising effective tax rates. Until 1985, as personal dollar incomes went up with inflation, the income was pushed into higher and higher brackets and was taxed at higher rates…

“A third way that inflation yields revenue to the government is by paying off – or repudiating, if you will – part of the government’s debt. Government borrows in dollars and pays back in dollars. However, thanks to inflation, the dollars it pays back buys less than the dollars it borrowed do. That would not be a net gain to the government if it the interim it had paid a high enough interest rate on the debt to compensate the lender for inflation. For the most part, it has not done so. Savings bonds are the clearest example. Suppose you had bought a savings bond in December 1968, had held it until December 1978, and then had cashed it in. You would have paid $37.50 in 1968 for a ten-year bond with a face value of $50 and would have received $64.74 in 1978, when you cashed it in (because the government raised the interest rate in the interim to make some allowances for inflation). But by 1978 it took $70 to buy as much as $37.50 would have bought back in 1968. Yet not only would you have gotten back only $64.74; you would have also have had to pay the income tax on the $27.24 difference between what you received and what you paid – in effect, you would have ended up paying for the dubious privilege of lending your money to the government.” ~ By Dr. Milton Friedman from Chapter Eight of his 1992 book titled "Money Mischief"

With tax raises, spending cuts, and/or benefit reductions to entitlement programs not enjoying widespread popularity one way or the other, is there any doubt what will happen here once the FICA deductions no longer match the entitlement payouts. The 'stealth mode' will probably prevail.

Believing this will be the case, is there a way to capitalize from the instability of the current, and apparently very low, nominal rates on the longer term bonds? Can a long-bonds be shorted somehow – through an ETF maybe?

Helen'skid January 27, 2006 at 6:55 am

Inflation is indeed tricky to measure. In 1975 you could still find outhouses in America. Some contained a Sears catalogue for practical purposes. Henry Kissenger was opening dialog with the Chinese. Did he get rich off of that or what? Chrysler Corp. was on the verge of collapse, but for the INTERVENTION of the U.S. Gov. The floating currency experiment was taking off. Money, when it is related to something, like Gold or Silver is easy to measure. Money, when it is related to something, like Air or RMB, becomes blog fodder. In 1975 I would pay $.75 for a plate of ham and eggs with a side of hashbrowns and two slices of toast. Sometime the coffee was included in the price, sometime it was a dime ($.10) extra. $3 lattes at Starbucks had yet to benefit the lifestyle of the self-delusional, upwardly-mobile, poverty-stricken, lower middle-class. It is almost impossible to admit that you are poor. That's the reason the poor seem so much better off than they are. That's the reason you can sell a cup of hot flavored water for $3. As long as I can scrape enough coins together to buy a $3 latte, I can carry a cup around that proclaims to the world, I am not poor. Speaking of eBay,I recently sold a Starbucks ceramic mug, made in China, for $15! People are idiots, or are they? For the price of 5 lattes, I can, indefinitely, proclaim to the world, I am not poor. I digress. Today the plate of ham and eggs costs $6.95, coffee is always additional at $1.50. I like the breakfast inflation model since it does not include a foreign component. It is the next best thing to gold, and it tastes good,too.

Pity the rich. For they provide the social programs that benefit the poor. Ask yourself, where does that foodstamp finally wind up? Why lookee here, it's in the bank of Mr. Big Agri-business. The belief among the rich is that social programs keep the poor from revolting, and in the return for such inconsequential sums, they can keep their heads attached to their bodies. As long as the money goes round and round there is prosperity for all. The money is not going round and round, anymore. The rich have chosen to purchase cheap foreign labor for a higher profit margin. They have lost their fear of revolt. This is a case where the rich get richer. Social programs are no longer sustainable; pressure is on the poor to get poorer. The thinking further evolves to say that Americans, or other industrialized states, are not competitive with this cheap foreign labor. I propose that cheap foreign labor is actually a subsidy for the rich. Cheap foreign labor should never have been allowed entry into our markets without Global Wage Rate Equilibrium. This is economic suicide. What you see before you as a robust economy is actually the end game of economic Jenga, one stick away from collapse. To say that the poor benefit from lower prices at the expense of social programs is ludicrous. A question to ask is, are China and India better off than they were in 1975. See if you can find a Sears catalogue in Chinese on eBay.

Christopher Meisenzahl January 27, 2006 at 8:20 am

Sounds like Sears was "price-gouging" back then? ;-)

Mike January 27, 2006 at 9:55 am

I haven't read the other comments, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone's thoughts, but what about looking at comparable goods today instead of inflation-adjusting the 1975 numbers? I can get a much more powerful calculator than the one in the catalog today for probably the same price in non-inflation-adjusted numbers. Ditto many of the other goods discussed. Could be a good discussion on the effects of technology, improved efficiency, entrepreneurialism.

Suresh January 27, 2006 at 3:53 pm

I don't think you'll get consensus that quality/feature improvements in products & services ought to be accounted for in measuring consumer price inflation. In point of fact, they are; after all, isn't that what hedonics adjustments to CPI figures are about? However, I see two problems with such hedonic adjustements. First, any price difference is only helpful if I can choose to buy that lower quality/featured product at a lower price. (The obvious example is a car. A 1976 Cutlass Supreme cost around $6000. It is of a lower quality and has fewer features relative to a 2006 Toyota Camry. Through hedonic adjustments, it's certainly possible that the Camry could be deemed to cost less than the $6000 Cutlass Supreme. But, how does that help me? I can't buy a new $6000 car). Second, hedonic adjustments only ratchet prices downward, and don't account for quality/feature losses. This is most evident in services. What good is a monetarily cheaper service that costs me more time to use via an interactive voice menu, for instance? My extra wasted time isn't worth anything?

Another gripe I have with CPI measures is the use of substitution. If inflation statistics are held down by assuming that I'll buy hamburger when steak prices go up don't provide an accurate reflection of maintenance of a given standard of living.

Oh, and then there is the use of geometric weighting in CPI measures! Geometric weighting gives a lower weighting to those items increasing in price and gives a higher weighting to those items decreasing in price. Like substitution, how does use of geometric weighting reflect my trying to maintain a given standard of living? For instance, I can't shift from buying lots of gas for my commute to buying lots of computers just because computers are getting cheaper and gas more expensive.

By the way, there's a guy named John Williams over at Gillespie Research who calculates a pre-Clinton/Bush era CPI at http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn. Interesting graph there.

Suresh January 27, 2006 at 4:00 pm

[EDIT first sentence]
You'll get consensus that quality/feature improvements in products & services ought to be accounted for in measuring consumer price inflation.

liberty January 27, 2006 at 6:18 pm

>A 1976 Cutlass Supreme cost around $6000. It is of a lower quality and has fewer features relative to a 2006 Toyota Camry. Through hedonic adjustments, it's certainly possible that the Camry could be deemed to cost less than the $6000 Cutlass Supreme. But, how does that help me? I can't buy a new $6000 car

6000 2003 dollars?

Today you may be able to get a used car of as good quality for $6000 though. I recently bought a truck with 80k miles that is expected to last at least until 200k miles and spent 1/2 what a new truck of lesser value, for example a Toyota truck, would cost. My truck will last longer, hauls many times the amount, has more features, etc. You need to consider the number of miles a vehicle can take not just whether its new or used.

The reason for cheap used vehicles is the amount of new behicles that flood the used car market.

Kevin January 29, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Relating to the 1976 catalog, I'd like to see some research that accounts for:
1) The portion of today's income spent on things that didn't exist in 1976; and
2) The portion of 1976 incomes spent back then on things that are worthless to us today .

I suspect that's an important part of the real income vs. higher quality goods issue.

Lewis January 30, 2006 at 11:53 am

In 1978, my parents bought me a brand new
Sears brand 20 inch single speed bicycle
for $69 plus shipping
(with the banana seat of course).
In 2003, I bought a new bicycle for my son.
For the same $69 (plus tax), he got an aluminum frame,
18 speed, 26 inch mountain bike with
front and back shock absorbers.

I like the 2003 bike better even if it did require some cooperation
between companies in the US and China to get it made.

tripp January 30, 2006 at 4:13 pm

"Look at how expensive things were back then!" He looks at seven different products, five of which are technological devices. Duh, an electric typewriter and answering machine bought in 1975 would cost a hell of a lot in today's money. Sears most expensive oven range today? Costs the same in today's dollars. He's right about the tent, which is a good thing because that's where poor people would be living if people like him were in charge.

If you're wondering why he didn't look at food and clothing, it's because those things don't get cheaper the way technology does, and he wouldn't be nearly as impressive to people who aren't smart to realize when they're being misled.

averagejoe January 30, 2006 at 8:31 pm

I loved the 70's. Actually I loved the 60's even better and the 80's and 90's were ok too.

Prices are set by supply and demand. Nothing to it. Today's prices are being driven down by world wide cheap labor and incredible productivity gains. Save the 2006 catalog and in 2036 it's a sure bet that hours worked to buy that refrigerator will be less still.

I'd like to see a comparison of medical and educational costs.

Jason February 1, 2006 at 11:41 am

Even expensive and sophisticated products of today will steadily decrease in price as long as technology is on the rise, production techniques continue to improve, and demand is strong (all other things unchanged, such as a depletion in available resources). Thirty years from now there is a good chance that young Boudreaux might pick up a Best Buy catalog and be astonished at the unbelievable prices people were willing to pay for Plasma screen TV's or computers with only 2 GHz of processing speed. What is advanced today will always fall short of tomorrow’s expectations in a healthy economy.

I also believe free market economies would improve competition levels and thus increase the rate at which technological advances would have to be made in order for businesses to stay competitive.

I also agree with Helen on Sear's "price-gouging", they had an incredible competitive advantage and they obviously were using it to its full potential.

Steven C. Barr February 11, 2006 at 11:51 pm

Interesting sidelight…

When I first recall seeing television sets being sold (Chicago, c.1950)…a typical everyday set cost about $300. It would have been b&w, VHF-only, and have a 10" screen.

In 1955, when my family finally gave in and bought a TV, it was a 21" b&w Zenith "table model" (you needed a pretty sturdy table!). The cost? Just over $300.

About a decade later, when colour sets had evolved from luxury to everyday, a 21" colour TV…middle-of-the-line, no special features…cost about $300.

In 2006, you can get a 27" colour set with stereo sound…an average everyday "TV set"…for…you got it! About $300!

The more things change…the more they stay the same…

Steven C. Barr
Skae's Corners, C.W.

miss joys February 13, 2006 at 11:39 am

plasma tv's for sale .

Panasonic 42-Inch Plasma TV with Table Stand TH-42PD50U $700.00

Samsung SPR4232 42" Flat Panel EDTV Plasma TV $800.00
Toshiba 42HP95 42"w Integrated HD plasma tv $650.00
Hitachi CMP-420V2 42 inch EDTV Plasma TV in Silver $650.00
Philips 42 Inch Plasma TV and Monitor 42PF9630A $600.00
LG Electronics DU-42PX12XC 42 Plasma TV, 1024 x 768 …$1000.00
Sharp Lc-20b4u Plasma Tv $550.00

NOTE: ALL PLASMA TV'S IN FACTORY ARE SEALED BOXES, WITH
CHARGERS, ACCESSORIES, MANUALS INCLUDED.
10 HOWARD CLOSE IKEJA,LAGOS,NIGERIA.

miss joys February 13, 2006 at 11:43 am

PLASMA TV'S FOR SALE.

Panasonic 42-Inch Plasma TV with Table Stand TH-42PD50U $700.00

Samsung SPR4232 42" Flat Panel EDTV Plasma TV $800.00
Toshiba 42HP95 42"w Integrated HD plasma tv $650.00
Hitachi CMP-420V2 42 inch EDTV Plasma TV in Silver $650.00
Philips 42 Inch Plasma TV and Monitor 42PF9630A $600.00
LG Electronics DU-42PX12XC 42 Plasma TV, 1024 x 768 …$1000.00
Sharp Lc-20b4u Plasma Tv $550.00

NOTE: ALL PLASMA TV'S IN FACTORY ARE SEALED BOXES, WITH
CHARGERS, ACCESSORIES, MANUALS INCLUDED.
10 HOWARD CLOSE IKEJA,LAGOS,NIGERIA.
REPLY TO: joystore200@go4.it

miss joys February 15, 2006 at 10:13 am

We are riliable mobile phone and plasma tv firm ,originated in greece,and lagos nigeria and have branch store all over the world
and we serve our customers better to create a solid and good business relationship with our customers in future ok.
And we shipp via FEDEX EXPRESS courier service within a duration of 2-3 days you will surely recieve your package
reply back to: joystore200@go4.it

miss joys February 15, 2006 at 10:19 am

motorola v3 for just $140.00

We are riliable mobile phone firm ,originated in lagos nigeria and have branch store all over the world
and we serve our customers better to create a solid and good business relationship with our customers in future ok.
And we shipp via FEDEX EXPRESS courier service within a duration of 2-3 days you will surely recieve your package.
mail back to joystore200@go4.it

embutler March 30, 2006 at 10:08 am

food is a hell a lot cheaper now than in the 1970s …
you could get boneless chicken breasts in the 1970s for 1 buck a pound…now it is 5 bucks per pound,the equivalent of 50 cents then..

bermejo April 23, 2006 at 4:23 am

joystore200@go4.it
he is a swindler, do not make businesses. nigeria lagos ikeja ist Fake

es un estafador, no hagan negocios. Fake

BOBBIE JO December 1, 2006 at 7:11 pm

i have a sears catalog from the year 1900. it is the original and it is great condition. there are no tears. just a fade in color. i want to know how much it would be worth today. i found it in my grandfathers attic. p.s. a kitchen range in 1900 cost $9.20 to $31.05.

Trade2Trade Limited August 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Hello,
We are a registered and authorise general electronics distributor. We deals on brand new Unlocked mobile phones such as:
Nokia, Samsung, Motorola,T-Mobile Juicy,Sony Ericsson etc,and products like Notebook Laptops,Apple ipod, Xbox 360, Sony
PSP, Nintendo Wii,Sony PS3 and TomTom Go.

Mobile Phones:
Apple iPhone 8GB Unlocked Quad Band GSM….300$
Nokia 8800 Sirocco…………………………………………. $220
Nokia N70 Unlocked …………………………………………$160
Nokia N73 Unlocked …………………………………………$180
Nokia N80 Unlocked …………………………………………$170
Nokia N93i Unlocked ………………………………………..$220
Nokia N95 Unlocked …………………………………………$270
Nokia E90 Unlocked …………………………………………$220
and many more……..

Sony ericsson K800 …………………………………………$160
Sony ericsson W800, ……………………………………….$160
Sony ericsson W810i ……………………………………….$175
Sony ericsson W850 ………………………………………..$180
Sony ericsson W900 ………………………………………..$170
Sony ericsson W950i………………………………………. $180

Motorola RAZR V3 …………………………………………..$130
Motorola Razr V3i ……………………………………………$140
Motorola MOTORAZR V3xx ……………………………….$140
Motorola V3x Razor …………………………………………$145

Samsung D500 ………………………………………………$150
Samsung Black Jack ……………………………………….$230
Samsung U600 ………………………………………………$200
Samsung U700 ………………………………………………$250$

GIGABYTE:
GIGABYTE G CAM GSM cell phone (UNLOCKED) …………….$150usd
Gigabyte G-SMART-i GSM cell phone (UNLOCKED) …………..$300usd
Gigabyte G-Smart GSM cell phone (UNLOCKED) ………………$220usd
Gigabyte i120 PDA/TV/Mobile Cellular Phone (Unlocked) ……..$230usd

IPODS:
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A ………………………95$
Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player …………………..50$
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A. …………………..70$
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano ………………………………………..90$
Apple 30 GB iPod Video …………………………………….100$
Apple 60 GB iPod Video …………………………………….150$
Apple 80 GB iPod Video …………………………………….170$

VIDEO GAMES
Playstation 3 —………………………………………………. $200
Sony PSP Value Pack-……………………………………….$105
Nintendo Wii —……………………………………………….. $175
Xbox 360 Core System —–………………………………. ..$160
Xbox 360 Prenium pack -…………………………………….$190
Xbox 360 Platinum Bundle Console —–………………. ..$155

NOTEBOOK LAPTOPS
Apple MacBook Pro 15-inch 2.16Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
2.16Ghz version. 15.4-inch widescreen display
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2GB,120GBHD…………………………..$650USD

Apple MacBook Pro 17-inch 2.33Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
17" upgraded version.• 15.4-inch widescreen display
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 1GB,120GB HD…………………………..$800

Apple MacBook 13-inch 2.0Ghz Intel Core Duo (Black)
Sleek, Black 13" version.13.3-inch widescreen display
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo , 512MB.80GB HD
SuperDrive (DVD±RW, CD-RW)…………………………………………$600

Sony VAIO VGN-A790 17"Notebook PC (Intel Pentium M
Processor760 (Centrino), 1 GB RAM, 100 GBHard Drive………….$450

Sony VAIO VGN-T140P/L 10.6"Notebook PC (U/L/V Intel
Pentium M Processor 733 (Centrino), 512 MB RAM, 40 GB ……..$380

Toshiba Qosmio G25-AV513 17" (IntelPentium M
Processor 760 1024 MB RAM, 120GB Hard Drive,………………….$550

Acer 8215WLMi Core2Duo Notebook PC 2GHz 2GB 160GB………$500

Acer FR1005 Turion TL-60 Notebook PC 2GB 160GB ……………….$400

All our items comes with original boxes,and complete accessories, and 1 year standard international warranty,and 6 months factory guarantee.
We ship worldwide through FedEx, UPS or DHL. Our prices are wholesale prices.

please contact us for more inquiries.

worldtradecompany@luxmail.com
richard.salesdept@hotmail.co.uk
702 406 4390,
702 402 7201
thanks.

CHAT WITH THE SALES MANAGER ON MSN:
richard.salesdept@hotmail.co.uk

Previous post:

Next post: