Maybe I'm figuring it wrong myself, but I don't see anything particularly
troubling from Mark's posting. If Skip's lenses range from Ex+ to LNIB, and
we're talking $408 to $482, I would interpolate it that Mark is rating his
lens (by his asking price) as roughly 1/2 way between Ex+ and LNIB. I don't
see any reason to knock the whole posting and that way of setting a price. If
I see lenses at a seller's table ranging from $408 to $482, and the seller
places one more on the table priced at $450, aren't we to assume it's a
middle-of-the-road condition example? And who's to say WHAT we're judging
condition on? When I think of condition, it's 'cosmetics' I'm talking,
because I assume the lens' 'functionality condition' is perfect. But that's
me, and I'd better ask the seller to be sure we're on the same page, and
that's exactly what a buyer should do of Mark or any other seller. ASK ASK
ASK. Which is why I (now) avoid eBay like the plague, unless I'm a bit
familiar with the seller.
George S.
>Gary Reese wrote:
> But how can folks look at Skip's data set and set a price:
> "taking the condition of the lens into account?"
> This isn't the first time I've seen this assumption stated by a seller.
>
> Two of the data points in Skip's set were Like New in Box. The other
> three were KEH=Ex+ condition. Of course, those cosmetic condition
> grades aren't told in the data set and are also my "expectations of
> condition" rather than what the buyer might think after seeing the
> lens. One can argue that Mark's 100mm f/2 fits into that condition
> range pretty nicely. But it just as easily could have missed the mark
> and who's to know? The standard deviation on the data was a wide $408
> to $482, since it had only 5 datapoints, further eroding confidence in
> the average.
>
>
|