You're calling certain ways of pricing (using Skip's numbers as a guide)
illogical, and you're hung up on being "statistically valid". All I was
saying was "I" understood how "maybe" Mark and anyone else could price an
item after seeing a few samples and their selling prices. I never said the
practice was logical. I never said it was scientific. I only said I
understood how this could be done. Sorry if you don't agree with my reasoning
and feel the need to show how it's an "invalid comparison." Maybe not
logical, but who are you to say I'm "invalid" in my thinking. I'm sorry if I
understand what's going on (setting the asking price of a lens) better than
you understand it. And I don't buy the 'blindfolded at a bazaar' comparison
either. You're not getting what I was trying to say, you're beating me over
the head with 'science' when we both agree that the prices and terms one uses
in selling their lens is very unscientific, it's very subjective.
George S.
(the last I'll post on this ridiculous discussion)
> 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
>
>
>
|