[Leica]OK, ya got me.. Those nasty collectors...

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Hi Mike

My point was, and damn me for even starting this painfull thread,
that the price of all used Leica products is inflated by the collectablity 
of the marque.  None of the lenses you mentioned below are selling for more 
in unadjusted dollars used than they were new. The Leicas are...Not because 
they are rare, or because they are just so much better than a Zeiss planar,  
but because they are Leicas.

For god sakes even a Leica SHIRT is worth something to a collector, as I 
found some selling in EBAY some time ago, with actual BIDS! Jeez....

I am formally giving up on this as I am realizing I have offended a large 
portion of this group..the colletors are all doing us a big favor, the price 
of anything Leica is actually reasonable, and Ansel Adams was a died in the 
wool Leica user, but prefered the Minox for his landscapes...:)

Best Wishes
Dan

>From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Leica] Those nasty collectors...
>Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:13:15 +0000
>
> >>>Marc, lets take a 50mm Summicron M for example.  In 1985 this lens
>was
>selling NEW for 320.00.  That same lens is currently nearly 600.00 in
>mint
>condition<<<
>
>
>Uh, correct my arithmetic (please), but does't $320 x 4% inflation for
>14 years compounded annually equal almost exactly $600? All that means
>is that it hasn't lost any value, not that the price has gone nuts.
>
>One of the advantages of many top-quality products is that they tend to
>retain resale value or even appreciate in value. My grandmather, who
>lived to age 91 (1902-1993), was probably highly unusual in that in his
>whole life he never bought an automobile that didn't appreciate in
>value. He bought the best and then kept each car for 20 years or more,
>and sure enough by the time he got rid of each, they were always worth
>more than he'd paid for them. He died with a 1955 Lincoln Continental
>and a 1969 Mercedes-Benz 6.9 in his garage, and both fetched more than
>he'd paid for them--the Mercedes barely, the Lincoln by quite some.
>
>Not adjusted for inflation, but still.
>
>And what did a Nikon or Canon or Pentax medium-speed (f/2, f/1.8, f/1.7)
>50mm lens go for in 1985? I'm betting it was a good deal less than $320.
>
>Also, I doubt anybody who would claim to be a "collector" would be
>buying a 1985 50mm Summicron-M. That's still user territory, for sure.
>Heck, it's the current design.
>
>--Mike
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com