Author Topic: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones  (Read 1476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nubbinator

  • Dabbler Supreme
  • * Maker
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 8658
  • Location: Orange County, CA
  • Model M "connoisseur"
KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 01:50:59 »
I didn't want to post this in great finds because it isn't, but I thought it was interesting since I don't think any KB-5181s have been known to come with Aristotle switches yet.

Here's the eBay listing.

And rehosted pics:






Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3670
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #1 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 03:47:49 »
Are those dyesubs?

Those look way different than the KB-5181 MX-compatible keycaps I’ve seen pictured before.

Offline nubbinator

  • Dabbler Supreme
  • * Maker
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 8658
  • Location: Orange County, CA
  • Model M "connoisseur"
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #2 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 03:50:05 »
If they're dyesubs, they're super crisp.  My bet is pad printed, but I couldn't say.

Offline chyros

  • a.k.a. Thomas
  • * Esteemed Elder
  • Posts: 3500
  • Location: The Netherlands
  • Hello and welcome.
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #3 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 04:37:08 »
Very probably pad printed, Chicony did that on most boards in the days. They used a nice font though.
Check my keyboard video reviews:


Offline tronbeaver

  • Posts: 123
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #4 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 09:35:30 »
What an ugly keyboard.

Offline nubbinator

  • Dabbler Supreme
  • * Maker
  • Thread Starter
  • Posts: 8658
  • Location: Orange County, CA
  • Model M "connoisseur"
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #5 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 11:18:48 »
What an ugly keyboard.

What a useful comment.

Offline jacobolus

  • Posts: 3670
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: KB-5181 with Aristotle MX Clones
« Reply #6 on: Sun, 24 January 2016, 16:35:32 »
Note that the white balance of the picture is terrible. Should look more like