Re: "Collecting" vs. "Owing and not using"

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> > Stamps were made to be used.  Stamp collectors collect unused stamps that
> > could still be used.  I once was a stamp collector when I was a kid and
> > still have things like a mint-block of an Amateur Radio stamp.  They still
> > could be put on letters and be used, but I don't.  I keep them.  Collected.
> 
> I would respectfully suggest that while I can go to the post office and 
> purchase an unlimited number of stamps to allow me to pursue my interest (or 
> livelihood) in letter sending, I unfortunately cannot do the same with stereo 
> cameras.

That's true and doesn't conflict with the counterpoint I was making to George's
posting.  I inferred that George's point about stamp collecting being different
from camera collecting was that cameras were made to be used (not
that the builder's intentions are necessarily important anyway) and stamps,
which are collected, are not.  I then noted that stamps were made to be
used as well, so on *that* basis, there isn't a difference.  Perhaps I 
misunderstood the point I had commented upon.  Appologies if I did (or
even if I didn't... :-).

Note: One *can* go and buy brand new stereo cameras to your heart's content,
      but you can't buy a new realist -- just as one can go buy new stamps
      in mass quanities but not buy an 1966 (whatever) Amateur Radio stamp
      from it's manufacturer.  Both have available "current models" and both
      have not-so-available old-models which are in demand.  By collectors.
      And both are in usable condition.  The parallels are fairly strong.


> I would rather live in a world which functions with 
> fair-minded sellers (see previous post) who are generous in their pricing, 
> with the understanding that these tools are both no longer available, and can 
> play an important part in someones livelihood or serious artistic commitment.

I agree!!!, but should an enthusiast sell his/her Belplasca at a price
much lower than (s)he knows (s)he could get even if it turns out that the buyer
is a dealer who just wants to resell it at that higher price?  Can one
necessarily tell? Should one?

I think it's impressive when an enthusiast sells things at reasonable prices
rather than squeezing prices to the max.  But then I think it's okay for those
who want to do that as well.  I believe in a free market economy.  Indeed,
if everyone only sold at reasonable prices, it wouldn't be impressive anymore. :-)

I know that the price I'd sell at would depend how much I knew about the buyer.
Selling to one of those people who I lend one to would be for a much smaller 
price than if I tried to sell to an unknown person who answered a newspaper
classified ad.  Because I'm an enthusiast.  Not just a user.

Mike K.

P.S. - I think the "fairness" method of selling or giving isn't on a "user" vs.
       "collector" basis as been talked about.  I think it's on the basis
       of "enthusiast" vs. "non-enthusiast".  I loan a camera because I'm an
       enthusiast.  I wouldn't actively loan other things which I just have one of but
       aren't enthusiastic about.  I wouldn't even talk about it.  So, I think
       there are at least three categories: "collector", "user", and "enthusiast".
       They aren't mutually exclusive categories, they are more like 
       general characterizations.  Am I just digging myself into a deeper hole?  :-)


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1239
***************************