RE: Nishika Cameras

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies for taking a day to respond... I've been sick with the flu
and the rocks behind my eyeballs made trying to read a computer monitor
somewhat painful.  (Please try to surpress your cheers at my absence or
your groans at my return.  If this thread bores you please skip to the
next one, just like I do with the ones that bore me.)

>Then, you are saying that ALL sales prices are not significant because
>*every* single one of those 150,000 cameras were  only 1/150,000 th
>of the total.

OK, I was being a bit flip.  In truth, I think the market value is based
on the trend.  If you plot the selling price of the camera over the last
N transactions (where N is desired to be as large as possible), ignoring
any major "blips" in the curve, I think you would arrive at the market
value for it.  I'm convinced that people DO ignore the sales that buck
the trend, whether they're conscious of it or not.  That's why I disagree
with your assertion that the $400 Realist sale affects its market value,
unless over time more-or-less all sales were in that range.

>So is the "value" (intrinsic or market, your choice) that of the buyer
>or the seller?  And if they are different, which is "correct"?

Well, the seller's motivation usually is to get as high a price for the
item as s/he can, while the buyer's is to get it as cheaply as possible.
(I'll ignore for purposes of this discussion non-commercial motivations
like promoting the hobby of stereophotography.)

>Doesn't the mutually agreed upon sales price define the "correct" value?

The price they settle on depends on a lot of factors, including how
badly the buyer wants the item (he'll pay more) and how badly the seller
wants to sell (she'll take a lower price).  That's why most buyer's guides
list a RANGE of prices, which covers not only the condition of the item
but the human motivations behind this kind of horsetrading.  After the
conclusion of the transaction, have you never heard someone say that they
"got a good deal"?  This is because they felt they paid less (or got more)
than the market value for the item.  If the value were determined by the
selling price, EVERY deal would be neither good nor bad, by your definition
of market value.

>I think it's the definition of "market".  Specificially, its
>size, it's geographic location, its timeline.

Yes, I guess we do disagree here.  I define the market as anyone who
might possibly buy the item.  Sure, you may chose not to (or be unable
to) access the ENTIRE market, and this will surely influence the price
you pay or can get.  This doesn't change the market value of the item,
only where in the range (or above or below it) your sale will be.

>The most common market is one's local one.

Only because some people are ignorant and/or lazy and don't exploit
means to access a wider market (e.g. auction houses, the Internet, etc.
which provide access to VERY non-local portions of the market).

Jim and Joe are both collectors of widgets.  Jim and Joe buy and sell
to and from each other.  Now, if Jim and Joe are the only people in the
whole world who collect widgets, then they define the market and their
transactions ARE the market value for widgets.  But if Jim and Joe are
surrounded by widget collectors and STILL choose only to sell to each
other, don't you agree that their sales have no bearing on the market
value of widgets?  Their CHOICE to sell only to each other isolates them
from the market forces playing on the total market for widgets.

>I insist there also are multiple levels --  including much smaller
>local markets where values are different (or not) than the global one.

I feel that your multiple levels are artificial.  Short of some kind of
forced physical isolation (trade barriers, Iron/Bamboo/Nylon curtains,
etc.) one usually can access the larger market.  If you are in a closed
market due to outside forces, then I agree with you that YOUR market value
may differ drastically from the global market value.  But at least as
far as stereo cameras go, I don't think there are any such closed markets.
Sure, there may not be a market for your Realist in the remote parts of
China where film is unobtainable, but that doesn't make it worthless just
because you can't sell it there.

>I also insist that not all Realist cameras are of equal value.

No argument on this one, if I wrote anything that suggested otherwise
then I wasn't expressing myself clearly.

>Are we getting closer?  :-)

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points, but
you have made things clearer and I can see the logic in your thinking.

        -Greg W.


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