> Seriously, though, I've never seen these displays as surplus, which I suspect
> is because most non-calculator products that use dot-matrix LCDs need larger
> ones.

The other reasons you tend never to see those dot matrix displays as used
in organizers and such as surplus:

[1] The displays are often custom-made for the organizers in question; while
    some people might have use for displays with the special annunciators and
    other features (e.g. the 4-line sharps add some special dots to allow for
    a 5 2/7-line calendar) there's no general demand for them.  In addition,
    the companies building the organizers probably only have made the number
    of displays they'll actually need.

    By contrast, companies which use more "traditional" displays may purchase
    more than they need for a particular product if it reduces their per-unit
    cost, especially if they expect to use those displays in future products.
    If a company is making 75,000 widgets the per-unit savings at the 100,000
    piece price point might justify purchasing 100,000 displays; the company
    could then resell the 25,000 extras as surplus.

[2] Most pocket organizers have the display drivers built into the main CPU
    chip; even if the larger displays need additional driver chips, some of
    the driver pins (not just the video generation logic) are on board the
    MCU.  Consequently, there's no "saleable unit" whith drivers on-board,
    so a user would have nothing but the bare glass to work with.  While it's
    not too hard driving small LCD's, the amount of work required to drive
    a 240x64 display is substantial; there's no way to justify putting that
    much work into surplus "bare glass" displays when surplus displays with
    drivers only cost $20-$40 or so.  Since almost nobody in the surplus buy-
    ing market would be able to use "bare glass" organizer displays, there's
    little point in surplus vendors' stocking them.