Leica pricing in 2001 - Don't read if prone to fits of anger

[BNF]

I found my copy of Shutterbug from August 2001.

Following are the body and lens prices in US Dollars for new, authorized dealer products.

M6ttl - $1995

21/2.8 ASPH - $2295
24/2.8 ASPH - $1995
28/2.0 ASPH - $1995
28/2.8 - $1795
35/1.4- $2495
35/2.0 - $1495
50/1.0 - 2795
50/1.4 - $1895
50/2.0 - $995
75/1.4 - $2595
90/2.0 AA - $1995
90/2.8 - $1295
135/3.4 APO - $1995
Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 - $2195

Unbelievable, but true. 😱
.
.
.
.
.
.
One more thing.........

those prices do not subtract the factory $200 rebate. 😀:bang:

Meaning, the actual prices were:


M6ttl - $1795

21/2.8 ASPH - $2095
24/2.8 ASPH - $1795
28/2.0 ASPH - $1795
28/2.8 - $1595
35/1.4- $2295
35/2.0 - $1195
50/1.0 - $2595
50/1.4 - $1695
50/2.0 - $795
75/1.4 - $2395
90/2.0 AA - $1795
90/2.8 - $1095
135/3.4 APO - $1795
Tri-Elmar 28/35/50 - $1995

I am in the luxury business (European design, manufacturing and distribution) and know full well just the effects of currency change since then.

But, even using US CPI pricing 2001 vs 2008, these are shocking to me.

As a baseline, he 50 Summicron has increased 70% from the non rebate price and 113% from the rebate price.

End.

 

[Olsen]

"I ..... and know full well just the effects of currency change since then.."

Do you really? You are just confirming - 'the effects of currency change since then'.

 

[Mike Ip]

These prices really aren't that outrageous considering that was seven years ago and the Euro has been destroying the dollar of late. Those prices are just slightly lower than used prices with the exception of the 28/2 and the Noctilux. Obviously demand for the lens has increased with the introduction of the M8 as well. So not that surprisingly, but certainly one can dream of acquiring gear at those nice prices again....

 

[jbf]

I have to say I think the currency indeed does play a role on it. Though I suspect its a combination of currency and the need for leica to increase prices in order to continue making profit? Im not sure.

Keep in mind I am no economist nor am I a historian of leica so all of the above in my post could be rubbish.

 

[tomasis]

ehhhhhhhhh sitemistic. what nonsense.. you'd understand how euro is expensive if you lived in Europe. Lenses, bodies are manufactured in Europe, right? so it explains pays of workforce.

 

[retow]

Euro labour cost and steep price increases for metals and glass in the worldmarkets easily explain the nominally much higher USD prices for Leica lenses.

In 2001, one Euro was around 85-90 cents. Since about mid 2007, it trends in the 140-150 cents range.
Aditionally, prices for metals and glass increased sharply in the last few years (worldwide growing demand).

 

[Olsen]

Euro labour cost and steep price increases for metals and glass in the worldmarkets easily explain the nominally much higher USD prices for Leica lenses.

In 2001, one Euro was around 85-90 cents. Since about mid 2007, it trends in the 140-150 cents range.
Aditionally, prices for metals and glass increased sharply in the last few years (worldwide growing demand).

Hear, hear!

 

[gavinlg]

I can help buy imagine some poor fellow who just bought an m7, 35 1.5 summilux, 50 summilux, and 75 cron and looks at those prices having a "fit of anger" when reading that list.

haha.

 

[Mackinaw]

In 2001, one Euro was around 85-90 cents. Since about mid 2007, it trends in the 140-150 cents range.

I still remember reading Shutterbug magazine, back in the early-to-mid 1990's, where Leica's full page ad would read, "Buy an M6 and get $500.00 back!"

Jim B.

 

[BNF]

The point is not about the currency conversion and I had thought I had made that clear.. . and I've already adjusted for dollars from 2001 into 2008 before I made the claim of "anger".

In a simplified, Sunday afternoon 10 minutes of freetime post, I was trying to show that adjusted for CDI and the cost of dollars, while acknowledging the currency loss/gain, that the price rise is dramatic - more dramatic than currency flux would show and more than simple formulations on cost of living adjustments.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Assume a 15% rise in pricing in hard currency -- reasonable in 7 years, given commodity increases and inflation -- and a 60% rise for the collapse of the dollar. This translates to 84% overall. Sounds credible next to 70% against ad price and 113% ofter temporary discount, the more so as no-one is convinced that the dollar is going to recover a great deal in the near future and may indeed fall further.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sparrow]

cost and value are different and unequal

it is for you to decide grasshopper
🙂

 

[Sparrow]

PS why do you look like Oscar Wild

PPS or that other English guy, Stephen...... something

 

[Roger Hicks]

cost and value are different
🙂

Or at least, not necessarily the same.

My favourite is "John Smith earns $1,000,000 a year" versus "John Smith is paid $1,000,000 a year."

Cheers,

Roger

 

[RF-Addict]

So, let's take the currency conversion out of the equation - does anyone have the German pricelist from 2001 and today? How did the prices change in Germany over that time period?

 

[Olsen]

The point is not about the currency conversion and I had thought I had made that clear.. . and I've already adjusted for dollars from 2001 into 2008 before I made the claim of "anger".

In a simplified, Sunday afternoon 10 minutes of freetime post, I was trying to show that adjusted for CDI and the cost of dollars, while acknowledging the currency loss/gain, that the price rise is dramatic - more dramatic than currency flux would show and more than simple formulations on cost of living adjustments.

Simplyfied; you are confirming the dramatic effect of the fall of the US dollar to the Euro! Sure, there is a small percentage of increase pro anno for the seven years passed since 2001, but that's peanuts. Just enough to cover rizing materials and energy cost. Or not even that.

2,000 US$ was € 2.350 back in 2001. Today that is only € 1.350. Try to grasp the significance of that. The cost of things (metals, energy etc.) has rizen here in Europe too, - about 3% per year. To buy € 2.350 of goods in 2001-Euros you need € 2.750 today. That is 4,000 US$ in today's dollars...

Leica? They are hardly making any profit at all.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I guess I'm getting old. Used III-C bodies for $36.50, III-f at $89.50, Leicavits for $25. A new M2 listed at $200, $250 if it had a self timer, $288 for an M3. When they first released the M4 it was also $288. The bad news? I was making a whopping two bucks an hour!

 

[Thardy]

The price really doesn't matter since I've decided buying anything Leica will just reduce my pitiful retirement nest egg that much more.

 

[Al Patterson]

The price really doesn't matter since I've decided buying anything Leica will just reduce my pitiful retirement nest egg that much more.

No, it just is a diversified retirement nest egg. Some of it in stocks, some in bonds, and some of it in "anything Leica". Maybe I should sell my gold and buy an MP...

 

[Avotius]

Anyone stop to think about what the prices will be in 7 years on this trend?