RE: Nishika Cameras

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I have no doubt that some poor sap somewhere at some time paid $400
> for a 3.5 Realist (perhaps at one of Dalia's auctions?  Just kidding).
> 
> If you *seriously* believe that that changes the instrinsic value of
> the camera, then I have *several* bridges to sell you, along with a
> collection of 50's stereo cameras. :-)

"Intrinsic value"?  Maybe not.  "Market value"  Yes.

> I also have no doubt that some lucky person somewhere scored a mint
> condition Realist Custom for a song, most probably from someone who
> didn't know what they were selling.  Does that mean that no one
> should ever pay more than a song for a Custom, ever?

No.  Why would you think that?  I don't understand.

> 
> >The worth of a camera (or anything else) is what someone will pay
> >for it, rather than that which is hoped for it.  And it's dynamic.
> 
> I think this is nonsense!  There is such a thing as an intrinsic
> value for a useful object, irrespective of its current selling price.


I think what you're getting at is not so much "intrinsic" but more
of a "generally seen range" of market values.  But that's more of a 
statistical handling of the market value of a lot of similar cameras.  
In other words, "that" value is but the statistical accumulation of a lot of 
transactions each of which was but a single "insignificant" transaction.

If supply and demand had it such that 3.5 Realists go for $1K on
average, then that's its average market value (it's probably not
the market value for each individual camera).  If really good digital 
stereo cameras come out, then all those $1K ones may then be worth
89 cents because that's all people are willing to pay.


> The notion that any one, single transaction has any but the slightest
> mathematical bearing on the value of an object is ludicrous.  By the

I think your statement is ludicrous.  So there.  :-)

The value of THAT CAMERA THEN is what it sold for.  The value of any
of the cameres that Dalia sells in her auction is was that which
it sold at.

This doesn't mean that ALL cameras of the same model are suddenly 
worth that value.  It just means that specific camera was worth that
amount, at that time, "there".

It's the definition of market value for an item.  Doesn't mean
all similar items are worth that.  Or the same one at a different
time or place.

> above logic, I have only to go out and pay $1,000 for a Realist to
> make it a $1,000 camera!  (Please note that I am talking about objects
> which are in fairly common supply; one-of-a-kind collectibles are in
> an entirely different category, where what they bring at the next
> Christie's auction is effectively what they're worth.)

Then you agree with me.  What it sells for is what it's worth.  Rarity
is only one of the criteria for setting worth.  And Cristie's
as I understand, sells relatively "common" things as well -- just
doesn't get the TV coverage for those other things.

> So, is the Belplasca really WORTH ten times as much as a Realist?
> Are the pictures it takes 10x as good?  Is it 10x better in ANY way?
> Or is that just what it SELLS FOR, because of (low) supply and (high)
> demand?

How, then does one calculate "intrinsic value".  Value of the materials
that make it up?  Aren't those material-costs used themselves *market* values
of the materials?

If you say that a Realist is worth $100~150 where did that number come
from?  Isn't that a *market* value?  The price that people paid, high
or low?

There seems to be no way of attaching dollar (yen, marks, etc) value to pure
"intrinsics" because dollar value is inherently a market-thing. One could, 
of course, say something has a relatively high intrinsic value compared to 
something else.  But money values are a market thing in most all of the
world nowdays.

About the relationship of value between a Realist and a Belplasca.
If one uses the criterion of "how good" the pictures it takes as the valuation
method, exactly how much "better picture" constitutes "twice the value",
and how is it measured?
Further, is this the *only* criteria for how much stereo cameras are worth?  Is a
mint condition Realist and one that looks like heck (but takes the same
quality image) identical in value because they take the same picture?

Is the picture a camera takes it's ONLY basis of value?

I suspect not.  At least not when I'm buying.  :-)

Mike K.


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