Bruce, sorry if I came across too harshly. I do appreciate the time and effort you put into this. It's also likely that I haven't said some of this stuff out loud so it's good that you triggered my frustration with some of this junk. By far, the most time consuming part of processing the serial numbers is verifying models that are not in the Master Model List. In every case I search the internet to visually confirm the name of the model and that it actually exists and that it's not just an existing model with an error in the name.Point taken and no issue with boundaries, if not known to all contributors before at least now 'Bad Boy Bruce' has laid the facts bare! Maybe I missed a post from earlier times but hopefully the other 800 or so are closer to within spec!
Anyway Pete, just chuck out what you/admin don't want in there. I have 30 Sansui pieces all between 1969 [TU-555] and 1988 [AU-317] so I do agree by example.
Happy New Year to all database supporters seems appropriate at this juncture
Cheers to all, Bruce.
AU-X1, 238120136, cnyel1967
Thanks for finding this. It's an example of a classic "decade" error. The serial numbers only have one digit to indicate the year of production. Each model has a decade reference and in this case it was set wrong back in 2005 when this model was originally entered and has been wrong ever since. It's fixed now.Hi Pete. Just stumbled across a D-100 Sansui Cassette Tape Deck. List has them as a 1970 product. They are almost certainly a 1980 Sansui Product.
View attachment 3076776
Shown here on top of a contemporary T-80 tuner.
I can't even access that page at all ("From Wednesday, April 6, 2022, Yahoo! JAPAN is no longer available in the EEA and the United Kingdom") but TOR browser let me. Just do <Ctrl>+i and select the relevant images in the Media tab. Or do <Ctrl>+s and select webpage, complete and look for the larger images on your PC. Works with Firefox but other browsers prolly as well:The Yahoo JP website wouldn't let me copy the photos so here's a link



Bruce, sorry if I came across too harshly. I do appreciate the time and effort you put into this. It's also likely that I haven't said some of this stuff out loud so it's good that you triggered my frustration with some of this junk. By far, the most time consuming part of processing the serial numbers is verifying models that are not in the Master Model List. In every case I search the internet to visually confirm the name of the model and that it actually exists and that it's not just an existing model with an error in the name.
Here's an example of what I call a "5-stack." The Yahoo JP website wouldn't let me copy the photos so here's a link. Each of these components has a separate name and serial number. There are usually model variations, possibly for different markets or just to extend the market life of the unit. This is a 900XV series. There are likely variants of this with different letter or number designations. The 5-stacks often get broken up with just the individual units showing up in separate auctions. I spend a lot of time chasing examples to verify the model exists.
| B-60,831070356,Reidy12,ebay.com.au Japan JDM BA? -- Yes BA-60 w photo | |
| CD-190,41003318,Reidy12,ebay.com.au UK date digits are zero -- seems an 8 digit sn with 00 date, over 2 photos but looks correct? Japan built | |
| CD-900X,610035342,Reidy12,auc.aleado.com XV? – likely 5-stack -- delete, no photo saved & forgot to remove from list | |
| |
| T-60,8500x2060,Reidy12,hifiwigwam.com 5th digit is incorrect -- delete I gave up on getting the missing 5th the digit, forgot to remove from list |






Hi Pete
Sorry I misread what you were saying. Yes it is an A-40 not an AU-40 which probably doesn't exist. Disregard below.
Two more have appeared recently, I don't know if we have them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers,
Ian
View attachment 3079692
Hi Pete, you were fine mate and my reply whilst intended 'tongue-in-cheek' maybe didn't work! I appreciate the extra work you do to validate the database entries, an important step.....I remember from Uni - Garbage IN Garbage OUT in database usage. The new models would be a prime example of checking required.
My corrections below;
B-60,831070356,Reidy12,ebay.com.au Japan JDM BA? -- Yes BA-60 w photo CD-190,41003318,Reidy12,ebay.com.au UK date digits are zero -- seems an 8 digit sn with 00 date, over 2 photos but looks correct? Japan built CD-900X,610035342,Reidy12,auc.aleado.com XV? – likely 5-stack -- delete, no photo saved & forgot to remove from list
CDD-X500,602015662,Reidy12,auc.aleado.com ???? Couldn’t find an example -- It is a stack system, see photos. I'm told the ID plate text is Japanese but T-tag is indeterminate DOM? T-60,8500x2060,Reidy12,hifiwigwam.com 5th digit is incorrect -- delete I gave up on getting the missing 5th the digit, forgot to remove from list
View attachment 3080189View attachment 3080190View attachment 3080191View attachment 3080192View attachment 3080193View attachment 3080194
Please don't mix corrections and new serial numbers. If it's already in the database or in your text file keep it separate from the monthly upload. If it gets mixed with the upload it creates a double entry. Corrections like this are easy and quick to make but cannot be done as part of the upload process. I've updated the entry in the database and it will be correct when I run the January report.Hi Pete,
Looking at new database pdf I've noticed a typo error I made for the GX-150 entry.
GX-150,7980082,Reidy12,FB Sansui Lounge.......extra digit "9" - should be:
GX-150,780082,Reidy12,FB Sansui Lounge
View attachment 3080940
Can you correct in the January run please?
Please don't mix corrections and new serial numbers. If it's already in the database or in your text file keep it separate from the monthly upload. If it gets mixed with the upload it creates a double entry. Corrections like this are easy and quick to make but cannot be done as part of the upload process. I've updated the entry in the database and it will be correct when I run the January report.