The RB300 was a sale item in 1983, it was receiving rave reviews in 1983/84 and selling by the Shedload, taking away sales from other Brands who did not know how to get a lookin.
The SME V Debuted as a Prototype in 1984 andwas not a sale item, it was a shot across the bow to Rega showing the Market a Up Market Rega was in the making.
The explanation for the delay of the launch, was that supply chain materials were being tested.
The general consensus is the Rega was interrogated to the point a Lawsuit was not in the making. When the legal side was no longer a concern the SME V was launched in 1985.
SME got away with it and so followed the early upgrade options for the Rega from Third Party Suppliers, which evolved into more Rega Type Arms.
I am not disputing the amount of Brands with Rega Type Arms, much Joy and Pride f Ownership has been attained.
I am a SME IV user 'no more', who was wed to this arm for many years.
Also I am a Audiomods Series Five user 'no more', but could not really differentiate the IV and Series Five.
These arms are a design that from my evaluation are able to create a perception of constraint and a excess of control on a replay.
It is the perception of this control and how it has become repellent, no longer attractive that has been the motivation for me to make the change.
As these designs are varied across the Brands, in the methodologies to produce them with serious considerations for the methods used to upgrade, it is off interest to me why there is so much of a muchness detected across the Arm Design in use.
A friend has been doing Freelance work for a Company that is producing Tonearms to compete with the Rega Design Arms and has had a option on all arms in the line, after having use of them on their Home System, they have not adopted one of these arms in place of their other Tonearm options, of which one is the design I use now.
In my simplistic world, I associate this with the Rega Design Effect.