Following this discussion, the word "fickle" comes to mind. When those of us who belong to the purist analog-favoring traditional musician camp speak about our preferences in synthesizers, I think we're sometimes presumed to be fixated on a small number of instruments. As if we feel, "I've got to have a Minimoog Model D or I'll just go mad. I want those white wheels and the red and blue rocker switches. I must have the heavy wood frame and that little overload bulb. Oh yes, bring it all back!" Or, fill in some other vintage icon. We're not nearly so fickle or fixated. What we're after is quality character of tone, irrelevant of the instrument that offers it. Jason has rightly used the familiar words to describe this character: "thick," "deep", "warm," etc. Bulls-eye! That's all I'm after, and that's all that many of us are after. The quest is more musical than material; it's not to bring back the old days with the old instruments; it's not to re-live our younger days by having in our basements our old belongings. It's a quest for a musical virtue that is often undermined by modern standards. And there are many objective aspects to it that all but a few people can recognize.
So, as much as the title of this thread is "Minimoog Model D," regardless, there's something broader to the issue than merely one synthesizer. In a sense, the Minimoog is only a symbol. The broader issue is the type of synthesis that the Minimoog represents.
Personally, I don't care if I never play a Model D or a Moog anything for the rest of my life. I don't care if I never play an ARP Odyssey or a 2600. What I do care about is the musical character of a synthesizer, its sonic personality. I want much more than an impressive spec sheet. I want a musical instrument capable of charm and sweetness. The catch is, however, that many of us feel the older designs achieved this better than the newer ones, and that's where the misunderstandings begin. But it's ultimately not about the age or era of an instrument, but about its character.