Comments on: Caterpillar automaton from 1820

By: dainel

dainel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

$300K. A toy from 1820 would be cool too, but wouldn’t fetch so much money. Just calling it an “automaton” increases the price.

By: desiredusername

desiredusername — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thats not very realistic!

By: strangefriend

strangefriend — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

That there is a CLOCKWORK CATERPILLAR.
Which would be a great name for a band . . . .

By: tylerkaraszewski

tylerkaraszewski — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Normally I don’t like these steampunky faux-Victorian machines that don’t really do anything that you guys tend to post, but for whatever reason, maybe because it both actually works and was actually designed in 1820, this one is pretty cool.

By: fubbs

fubbs — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

funny thing about art: quantifying its ‘usefulness’ = missing the point.

By: obeyken

obeyken — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hmmm. Perhaps someone can explain to me the difference between “automaton” and “wind-up toy.”

(I’m not suggesting that wind-up toys from 1820 are not totally cool.)

By: Amsterdaam

Amsterdaam — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Personally, I’d opt for the wind up version, much cheaper and equally as fun:

http://amzn.to/b7ABoD

By: Donald Petersen

Donald Petersen — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Moooooooo-thraaaaaaaa!