divewizard
perspicaz
I saw an article on Gizmodo that talked about this beater Leica MP-36 on Ebay that sold for $104,000. That seems just a bit excessive to me.
Is $104,000 a bit excessive for an Leica MP-36
- Thread starter divewizard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 3K
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
It may seem excessive but someone with the scratch will buy it. 😀
That's the way of the world... Some people think brand new cars are a waste of money. (including me)
That's the way of the world... Some people think brand new cars are a waste of money. (including me)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Peter,
Exactly.
Of course, surprisingly many people use the phrase 'waste of money' as a euphemism for 'I can't afford it'. I've bought one new car in my whole life. Unless I get very rich, I can't see it happening again, because I've never seen the point of going into debt to buy a motor-car (and never have done so).
Cheers,
R.
sig
Well-known
So Roger, you can not afford a new car?
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
No that is about the going price for one with patina..............these were a good investment about 20 years ago, I know someone who had (4) of them, two black, two chrome and (3) were ORIGINAL BOXED! - I held a boxed Black MP in my hand......yes it WAS amazing!!!!!!! 😀
I can only imagine what they would bring now if they ever would come to an open market.......but Leica's like that often are sold behind closed doors and in a private sale.
Tom
I can only imagine what they would bring now if they ever would come to an open market.......but Leica's like that often are sold behind closed doors and in a private sale.
Tom
Mister E
Well-known
This thing had been up for sale for months.
Thardy
Veteran
Many people say waste of money to mean that they think something is a waste of money. I don't think my business partner has ever bought a new car and he certainly can afford it. As for a $100000 camera, I can imagine what he would say!
mwooten
light user
Yes, I do find 104g a bit excessive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not without either spending far more of my modest savings than I am comfortable with, or borrowing money to buy it (which I have never done and expect never to do). Also, I don't actually need or even particularly want one, which makes it an indisputable waste of money.
Besides, I didn't say that 'waste of money' is ALWAYS code for 'I can't afford it', just that a lot of people aren't honest with themselves on this subject. For example, I think Ferraris are a waste of money, but that Bristols aren't (I've had friends who've owned both). The fact that I can't afford either is a separate issue.
But if I were very, very rich, there are all kinds of things I'd buy that I don't have now -- including, possibly, a couple of new cars (well, probably classics, such as Bristol and Damler, because I find most new cars pretty boring), and rather more of the Leica catalogue. There's a big difference between 'a waste of the money I've got' (i.e. there are other things on which I would rather spend limited resources) and 'a waste of the money I haven't got'.
Whenever I suggest that 'waste of money' is sometimes code for 'I can't afford it', some of the responses (not yours) are curiously defensive.
Cheers,
R.
sig
Well-known
There is no wonder people gets defensive when their 'waste of money' statement is cut down to 'no, you can not afford it'. You are turning a smart and educated opinion/choice to you are stupid with no self insight and poor.
So when you say 'Ferraris are a waste of money' the answer might be 'you have no idea about what you are talking about, a statement like that only shows that you have lost the plot and you are poor'.
So when you say 'Ferraris are a waste of money' the answer might be 'you have no idea about what you are talking about, a statement like that only shows that you have lost the plot and you are poor'.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Note the qualifications in my previous posts: words like SOMETIMES and SURPRISINGLY MANY PEOPLE, that sort of thing. The ones who get defensive presumably think it applies to them.
I don't think it applies to me, or at least, not often: as I say, if I had more money, I'd probably buy quite a lot of things that would be, if not a waste of money, then at least an extremely foolish application of the funds I have.
Besides, I'm not sure that being unable to afford a Ferrari qualifies one as 'poor'.
Cheers,
R.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Agree - and admire how Roger put it so succinctly.
Regarding an MP > $100,000, a price can only be excessive if the item didn't sell, I believe.
Making a judgement about or disputing the value another person places on an item relative to price paid is a waste of another resource: time. The market serves to engage seller and buyer in price determination. Sales are made. Value is exchanged by individuals. Done, efficiently. The only way I think a price could be excessive? If the buyer had to return the item because it was misrepresented (defective, nonoperable, etc.). Or maybe if the $$ paid were counterfeit.
As a aside, maybe asking the question why we consume in certain ways - as for example Veblen did when he coined the term "conspicuous consumption" and studied the behavior - could be more interesting and enlightening than debating prices paid by others in open markets.
Last edited:
sig
Well-known
Well surprisingly many people who say something is a waste of money are in fact correct. And when we are talking about 100 000 dollars cameras and Ferraris both 'I can not afford it' and 'it is a waste of money' qualifies for most of us.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
Well, quite. I doubt there are many on this forum who could even consider spending $100,000+ on a collectible camera. I certainly couldn't: it's probably more than half the value of my house. But if you've got that kind of money, and want to spend it on that, how can it be excessive?
Cheers,
R.
rod64
Established
I, for one, will never buy a $100K camera...again! ;-)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Did I deny that, explicitly or implicitly?
But clearly neither Ferraris nor $100,000 cameras are viewed as a waste of money by those who (a) have the money and (b) choose to spend it on Ferraris or $100,000 cameras. And it's always personal anyway. I'd pay good money to avoid having to go and see a football match, where someone else would pay £50 to see it.
That was my point, really. Unless you have the money to spend, whether or not something is a waste of money is hypothetical. Quite a lot of people dismiss a lot of very expensive things as 'a waste of money' -- Leicas, Lobb shoes, Ferraris, whatever -- merely because they are very expensive. I prefer to entertain the fantasy that one day I'll sell some novels and the movie rights to them and become so absurdly rich that I'll be able to afford some of the things that at present I can't afford. It's not likely, but not actually quite impossible either.
For example, in my present situation, a pair of Lobb boots at £5000 would be an extremely imprudent use of my money -- a 'waste', in a sense -- but if I could afford them without thinking, I'd wear nothing else.
Cheers,
R.
Brian Levy
Established
Maybe I am odd but if I would consider that type of cash outlay for a camera, I'd feel too guilty to buy it and probably donate most of that money to something worthy such as a retirement plan or a charity. I'm not one of those socially conscious cases but, there are better things to make me feel good than a camera. Then again, I fall into only buying 2 new cars in some 45+ years of having a driver's license, also. With the car, I do not see an aceptable return on investment when it loses up to 1 third of its value just driving it off the lot making it upside down financing wise for most persons. No diffeent than the housing mortgage crisis the US is currently experiencing.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Well let's not forget that the MP is maybe the MOST DESIRABLE collectors Leica of all time, other than dreams of owning a UR-Leica! 😀
Tom
Tom
raid
Dad Photographer
If someone has a few million doallars as expandable income, then the $100,000 purchase may not seems excessive to such a person.
Last edited:
robbeiflex
Well-known
A "waste of money" is a very specific thing, take the following example: You want to buy a drink. You see in front of you two drink machines. The first drink machine takes one currency unit (dollar, euro, loonie, etc), and the second takes 0.5 units. If you put your currency into the first machine, you just wasted 0.5 units. If you did not want the drink, then you wasted one unit.
In economic terms your want/need/enjoyment of the drink is called utility, and assuming you want the drink then it is the same regardless of the price. It applies equally to Ferraris, 100k cameras, expensive shoes, etc. If you want/need/enjoy the item then it has some utility for you. If you have one currency unit and two choices of what to spend it on, then your choice is the one that has more utility to you. If you decide to save it, then the security and interest you gain have more utility to you than the object you would have bought.
Back on topic. If I had the 100k, then I would buy a brand new MP and couple of lenses, and spend the rest on traveling around and using it until it is as brassed as the one in the gizmodo article. I would get a lot more utility out of my 100k that way. A collector may feel differently.
Cheers,
Rob
In economic terms your want/need/enjoyment of the drink is called utility, and assuming you want the drink then it is the same regardless of the price. It applies equally to Ferraris, 100k cameras, expensive shoes, etc. If you want/need/enjoy the item then it has some utility for you. If you have one currency unit and two choices of what to spend it on, then your choice is the one that has more utility to you. If you decide to save it, then the security and interest you gain have more utility to you than the object you would have bought.
Back on topic. If I had the 100k, then I would buy a brand new MP and couple of lenses, and spend the rest on traveling around and using it until it is as brassed as the one in the gizmodo article. I would get a lot more utility out of my 100k that way. A collector may feel differently.
Cheers,
Rob
