Mark H. writes:
<< I am asking $450 plus cost of shipping and insurance for this lens.
I have checked Skip William's page of Ebay selling prices as a guideline
and am taking the condition of the lens into account. >>
Don't anyone get me wrong here: that is certainly a fair priced, based
on sales over the 15 months since Skip's data set ended (May 5, 1999 to
Feb. 1, 2000). You'll probably sell this high demand/high quality lens
in no time. But how can folks look at Skip's data set and set a price:
"taking the condition of the lens into account?"
This isn't the first time I've seen this assumption stated by a seller.
Two of the data points in Skip's set were Like New in Box. The other
three were KEH=Ex+ condition. Of course, those cosmetic condition
grades aren't told in the data set and are also my "expectations of
condition" rather than what the buyer might think after seeing the
lens. One can argue that Mark's 100mm f/2 fits into that condition
range pretty nicely. But it just as easily could have missed the mark
and who's to know? The standard deviation on the data was a wide $408
to $482, since it had only 5 datapoints, further eroding confidence in
the average.
Skip's averages are a mean of a mean. In another works, the average
price confounded by the average condition of all examples sold. 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. That is all the data is.
It tells us nothing about value in relation to condition.
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 >
|