Re: [Leica] Were Leicas always so expensive?

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@email.msn.com>]

Arturo,
Interesting question. "Expensive" isn't as simple a term as one migh think.
My father-in-law gave me his M3 w/f 1.5 Summarit. He recalled that he paid
about $470.00 for the camera and lens in  1958 or 1959. That was a fair bit
of money then. However, the camera and lens still work as when new and are
now worth something in the neighborhood of $1200-$1400 dollars. He was a
camera nut at the time and bought othre cameras as well. They are all long
gone and forgotten. The M3 is used almost daily. I my view the M3 was a
bargin, and I suppose it continues to increase in value. I would never sell
it because my son or daughter plan to continue its use into the next
century. I think he got a good deal.
Sincerely.
Joe Stephenson
- -----Original Message-----
From: AJSymi@aol.com <AJSymi@aol.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Were Leicas always so expensive?

>Mark wrote:
>
><< Would LUGgers me ______more interested, or _________less interested if
Mr.
> Yasuhara was asking $1900 for his new camera instead of somewhere around
> $400? >>
>--------------------------------
>Mark:
>Mr. Yasuhara hasn't offered anyone his new camera at $400 (or any other
>price).  It's just talk.  So what's the point??  Although I would be
>interested in knowing if Leica has always been the expensive alternative.
>
>Arturo