My view on second hand prices are:
If it is almost equivalent to the new item in terms of cosmesis and
function etc... it deserves 600f the new price. A new 100 f2 from B&H
costs ~$700 which would set my value for one of these at around $420. The
high value of $482 could represent a desperate first time buyer and you do
see that when there is a very keen bidder on eBay driving the price of
something up further than it should go.. as happens with auctions
sometimes. Thats just my guide... if the item is no longer made then
it makes it harder to guesstimate a price but would depend on how much you
wanted that item. All about opportunity cost... the cost of the next best
way to spend the money... fortunately I have no other ways I want to spend
my money than on OM equipment.
Cheers
At 09:07 AM Monday 28/05/2001, you wrote:
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.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|