Re: [Leica] Long-term value; was Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake

[SthRosner@aol.com]

C'mon, people. You too Jack. I did not mean to say anyone buys a new Leica, 
in any generation, as an investment. The "collector" editions of M6's are an 
exercise in profit-making as is any product made and marketed as a 
collectible. Anything sold new as a collectible is, by definition, not.

> As a matter of interest, $151 invested in common, unexceptional stock in
>  1967, would today be worth about $3,400, given just the average, long term
>  return on the market. 

As Marc James would say, your authority for that statement, please. In 1967 
the Dow Jones Industrial Average low for the year was 786.4 and the yearly 
high was 943.1, average for the year, 864.75. For the past year, the low has 
been just below 8,000 and the high about 10,600, average for the year 9300. 
Divide that by 864.75 and the multiple is 10.75 times $151. results in 
$1,623. And that's for the Dow, not common unexceptional stock. 

So being able to sell it for close to half of what you paid for it in 
inflation-adjusted dollars is still a pretty terrific economic performance 
for a device that for 35 years has been extremely useful and pleasurable.

> Leicas are marvelous cameras, but do not represent a
>  wise investment. 

THAT'S the point; shares of stock or a bank account don't make photographs. 
The added point is that after 35 years of profit or just fun making 
photographs, you still have a device that is worth a multiple of what you 
paid for it in pre-inflation money.

End of story. I hope.

Seth          LaK 9
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html