RE: Nishika Cameras

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> would immediately flock to such a camera.  Perhaps some would, but I
> think a better example might be if a camera like the RBT X2 came on the
> market, widely available, for a few hundred dollars.  An event like
> THAT would knock the bottom out of the '50s stereo camera market

Perhaps, but that wasn't the point.  Point was that the 
"worth $1K camera" could become a "worth 89 cents" camera.  The actual
reason for it happening wasn't pertinent to the point being made.  Just
that the value could change wildly even though the camera itself didn't
change any whatsoever.  It still takes identical pictures to when it
was at the other value.

> This is where we disagree.  The COST of that camera is what it sold
> for.  This single transaction has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with its

The sold-at price and its market value aren't related?  Huh?


> VALUE.  (Try telling your insurance company that you paid $5,000 for
> the stereo Realist you lost in a fire, and watch them laugh at you when
> you expect to be reimbursed in kind.)  That's why there are such things
> as appraisers, who determine the VALUE of something, irrespective of its
> cost to you.  They look at a large number of transactions, and transactions
> involving similar items, not a single, possibly aberrent sale.

You only have to document as to why the particular one that you lost
was worth $5,000 and why it'll cost that to replace it.  Most insurance
is at best "replacement cost", not the value of what was lost.  If for 
instance, the one you lost was one that was worth $5K because it's the 
one the Realist's designer built and used himself -- you'd be unhappy 
with a $150 one that looks the same.

If the original one costed you $5K because you needed it on an hours
notice in Bangkok, then it's market value was $5K *then*.  Insurance
company will maybe give you $200 *now* because that's its 
replacement value *now*.

I wish I had McKeowen's (hope I got that right) intro about prices
(vs the values in his book).  Values/prices are very very very dynamic.


> 
> >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.
> 
> I thoroughly disagree!  "Market value" is what an item is worth, on
> average, to the entire collection of possible buyers (the "market").
> You are simply talking about the sale price, which only determines
> market value over a large number of such transactions (and still is
> subject to change depending on the market conditions, i.e. supply
> and demand).

You are applying the word "Market value" exclusively to the aggregate.
That is, "Realist cameras have a market value".  I agree this is a
valid use of the term.  However, I also use the term for specific units.
*MY* f3.5 realist camera has a value that is determined by the market
place, and that value is it's market value.  That value may differ from
the market value of another realist (for various reasons) and may vary
from the market value of realists in general.


> I'll admit that's a tough one.  Market forces are inherently dynamic.
> Nevertheless, prices for utilitarian items like cameras do seem to
> reflect, in a relative way, the functionality of the item.  Of course
> there are exceptions, like when a camera becomes "collectible" for
> some unknown reason, driving the market value up (but not the instrinsic
> value!).  This is also known as a "fad" and has caused many otherwise
> useless items to become temporarily very valuable, for no reason other
> than popularity.

Which is the "demand" side of "supply and demand", and why
the price (market value) goes up.   Market value is subject to 
supply and demand.  A camera's performance is another factor in the
demand side -- but not the only factor.

> to affect market value.  A pure user may not care if the camera shows some
> brassing, and a pure collector may not care if the shutter is slow, but the
> market value takes BOTH of these into account, because the market consists
> of both collectors and users.

So if you're a pure user, you'll sell your mint condition Realist for
the same price as your working but scratched up, cosmetically corroded, and torn
leather realist?  Can I choose which one I buy from you at that same price?  :-)

Mike K.


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 1929
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************