George S. writes:
<< Maybe I'm figuring it wrong myself, but I don't see anything
particularly troubling from Mark's posting. If Skip's lenses range from
Ex+ to LNIB, and we're talking $408 to $482, I would interpolate it that
Mark is rating his lens (by his asking price) as roughly 1/2 way between
Ex+ and LNIB. I don't see any reason to knock the whole posting and that
way of setting a price. >>
Since there were five lenses sold, that would have to mean that there
were 2 1/2 lenses at EX+ and 2 1/2 lens at LNIB.
I actually supported the price Mark set. But I put forth a
statistically valid argument that sellers are making incorrect
assumption when they cite Farrar or Williams as the benchmark for
pricing their particular piece of equipment. It was pure luck that Mark
was in the ballpark - which is why I chose this situation to cite as an
example.
<< If I see lenses at a seller's table ranging from $408 to $482, and
the seller places one more on the table priced at $450, aren't we to
assume it's a middle-of-the-road condition example? >>
That is an invalid comparison to the way I tried to portray this:
"Exactly like going to a bazaar, getting blindfolded, pointed to a
single lens out off all the lenses of that type auctioned in that
particular 8 month
period and paying the Skip Williams average."
In that make believe situation we gathered the exact five lenses sold on
eBay in the 8 months representing Skip's data. It wasn't at all like a
single camera show dealer pricing 5 examples of the lens for sale at
once. My example illustrates the element of chance involved in using
any price info which doesn't include condition grades. For this 100mm
f/2 data: blindfolded you have a 40 hange of picking a LNIB example
and a 60 hance of picking a 9+ example. Since the 9+ examples averaged
$419, there is a better than even chance one would be paying $26 more
than the average eBay venue selling price. If you pick a LNIB example,
you "save $21.50" over the average.
By the way, this ignores 10- (KEH=LN-) cosmetic condition, which is what
Mark's lenses sounds like to me. In the example of a dealer pricing
lenses, a $450 example would most likely be a 10- (KEH=LN-). Which is
exactly why I was saying that Mark's lens ought to sell quick and it'll
be a win-win transaction.
<< And who's to say WHAT we're judging condition on? When I think of
condition, it's 'cosmetics' I'm talking, because I assume the lens'
'functionality condition' is perfect. >>
You read the introduction to a particular price guide and see what the
author says he/she based their scheme on. Most condition grading
schemes imply perfect functionality. When there isn't perfect
functionality, one can easily extend the telescoped 7-10 ratings
downwards to include two classes of "as-is." I give 4-6 to as-is which
can be economically repaired and 1-3 when its beyond economic repair.
For example a 1 would be KEH=UG and not worth repairing. A 5 would be
KEH=BGN after a repair that was worthwhile, given the value of the
item. A 3 is KEH=Ex or EX+, but with a problem not worth repairing
given the value of the item. A 0 is "as-is" without sufficient
information. A ? is sold "as-is" with the seller not being too
knowledgable and/or obliging towards returns. A ? after a grade, like
9?, would be a high anxiety purchase in which the seller didn't back up
their condition grade (typically when they just say "excellent"), or
when they mixed phrases such as: "Mint" in the subject line and
"excellent" in the text.
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 >
|