Re: [photo-3d] Collectors value = commercial value????

[Linda Nygren <lnygren@xxxxxxx>]

Clearly George's statement that "value is value" is an
oversimplification. 

Although "most recent purchase price" may work as a simple arbitary way
to "value" an item, it is not always the most reasonable IMO. For
example, what if a seller were simply to put down what they themselves
recently paid for the item rather than what they are now selling it for,
is that really less honest or accurate? Especially if there was a
bidding war that artificially inflated the selling cost of this
particular item well beyond usual market value.

I have had an issue with this type of "value" determination in terms of
USPS insurance in that if one gets a really good deal on ebay etc, one
can only collect on insurance on the item for a maximum of the *purchase
price*, not the true value. So even if you purchased $200 coverage on
that item, you would only be able to collect on the $40 purchase price
in the event of a loss. This is one of several reasons I usually just
take my chances rather than paying extra for insurance except on very
large ticket items. Delivery confirmation keeps the buyer and seller
honest about where the item was lost if there is a problem. 

When I sell and ship items overseas, I mark the customs form as
"merchandise" rather than a "gift" but give a value estimation that is
at the low end of what I consider the value "range", and use a
description like "used camera lens" or "old photographs". Obviously the
easiest way to arbitrarily assign a value is the most recent purchase
price, but I also think it is justifiable to use a more subjective
determination or estimate based on usual market value since clearly
"values"(prices) vary widely on used/collectible items.  -Linda



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/