If I?m going to contribute to this thread on statistics and OM prices,
I?ll need to let the cat out of the bag. For nearly three years, I've
recorded each and every auction for single items or standard body/lens
combos on virtually everything marketed in the OM System. Additionally,
I've recorded Olympus IS System components (after the IS-2), all major
brand generic lenses in OM mounts which typically sell for over US$50
(baby, that is a list!), all FTL System equipment, all published Olympus
literature (with the exception of instruction books and manufacturer
brochures) and all Olympus related ephemera (pins, displays, banners,
etc.). I?ve also condition graded all of these individual auctions,
based on all the word and picture clues the seller provided, plus coded
an uncertainty level if I had more than typical doubts - like when there
weren?t any clues. Think of that as reading between the lines, which is
what our experienced buyers on the OM List consistently tell others to
do. Thus, I have a condition grade that reflects what a savvy buyer
might consider as their "expectation of grade" and "degree of anxiety"
if they were to purchase the item. I even have condition grades on the
broken item sales. Actual internet sales price, coupled with a
consistently applied condition grading scheme and an anxiety index, are,
in my humble opinion, enough to base a useful and accurate price guide
on.
>From the very beginning I wanted to avoid sampling and the inherent
limitations of sampling, which I?ve faced in all the big data sets I?ve
worked with in biology. Plus I wanted to know commonness and rarity of
anything OM related. So I had to record all those bloody 50mm f/1.8 lens
sales (differentiated, no less, by SC, MC1, MC2 coating modifiers), as
well as exceedingly rare Eyecoupler and 100mm f/11 sales! So to get it
right I recorded everything. The bonus is that it allows me to use more
precise formulas for standard deviation and variance, which are tighter
in tolerance than the ones for sampled data. Furthermore, averages and
their standard deviations (you use them as a statistically meaningful
price spread) can be determined for each condition grade and auction
uncertainty level - not just for all the sales of an particular item
mixed together. Last, but not least, I avoid the problem of correctly
sampling rare items, which are statistical nightmares in themselves.
Of course, this has taken months of labor to compile and is obviously
worth something in itself. The problem I face is that its monetary value
is greatly diminished by the availability of free price data on the WWW.
For years I have seen appraisals of Internet market value posted to the
OM List. Occasionally I speak up when the amount just doesn't jive with
my database, or years of Shutterbug and annual Olympus Dealer Price data
that I also have. However, I seriously question whether many folks would
pay for such rigorously compiled data and a statistically valid analysis
of the same. It runs hand in hand with me professionally questioning, as
a research biologist, whether American society even values good science.
Heck, in Las Vegas they are struggling to get 500f the remaining kids
to pass the math and science proficiency exams to pass high school!
Perhaps it is time to abandon the effort at a statistically valid price
analysis and leave things be. I could use that time for other pursuits,
like photography! Heck, if everyone knew with a high degree of
certainty the value of Olympus OM components, we wouldn?t find anymore
DF deals. On the other hand, with self-publishing to a limited number
of people, those individuals fortunate enough to have the information in
hand when considering a OM purchase can score many a DF deal. I suspect
a price guide could pay for itself after the first major purchase. It
could make a buyer question what they might otherwise have to bid in a
"high anxiety level" auction. Who can say that using McBroom's have
saved them anything on eBay where the OM System is concerned? Chances
are you will pay high dollar since it is based on dealer asking prices!
By the way, Michael McBroom condition graded for his bluebook with an
expectation of working condition. How many of us camera show buyers have
found as-is merchandise, but otherwise at "working" prices, because the
dealer didn't know or reveal that it was broken or missing something? I
sure have and ironically it didn't matter if the seller was an Olympus
specialist or not. So, I don't think that the inability to examine
Internet purchased merchandise before buying it invalidates my effort.
(I even noted missing parts, like MD caps). In another words, if some
follow-up reports of auctions described as ?excellent? turned out to be
?as-is,? well, the same has happened with camera show deals (and mail
order!). And nobody is saying McBroom?s is invalid because he didn?t
account for those same instances at camera shows.
I?ll share these preliminary conclusions from the data: We are buying
from eBay on an "expectation of grade," tempered by a certain level of
anxiety due to less than perfect information. Those dual perceptions,
without question, are the major price influences. True, they are
confounded by periodic spikes associated with buyer behavior from
exceptionally high bids (e.g., people only using 20 day completed
auction data think those reflect the market) and by seasonality (e.g.,
Christmas madness), but those gets revealed by graphing the data in a
time sequence.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|