Re: Lens Hood Prices

[pgs@thillana.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick Sobalvarro)]

So, to make this whole inflation discussion complete, I thought I'd
make the calculations into today's dollars for the couple of 1960's
Leica prices that were posted, using the U.S. government's consumer
price index (CPI).

We have, courtesy of Marc James Small:

(1960), the IROOA/12571 lens hood is listed for the 2/35 at $4.50

The CPI conversion factor for that year is 0.189, so in 1996 dollars
that's $23.81.

The 1965 CPI conversion factor is 0.201, so for the 1965 hood:

(1965), the 12585 lens hood is listed for the 2/35 at $9.30

we have $46.27 in 1996 dollars.  The 1995 conversion factor is 0.971,
so the 1995 price of $59.00 is $60.76 in 1996 dollars.  So the
increase in cost between 1960 and 1995, after correction for
inflation, was 61%; and the increase in cost between 1965 and 1995,
after correction for inflation, was about 24%.

And courtesy of Jack Hamilton, we have that the list price for an M-3
with 50mm f2 Summicron was $447.00 in 1960, which is $2365.08 in 1996
dollars.  The list price of an M-6 today, body only, is $2795.00, and
one would need to buy that 50mm f2 Summicron as well, at $995.00, for
a total list price of $3790.00.

This means that the list price in the United States for the base Leica
rangefinder camera has increased, after correcting for inflation, by
about 38% since 1960.

Not too good for people buying today, actually, but it compares
remarkably well to the price increases for real estate in Palo Alto,
California, or to tuition at a top-ranked private college in the
United States, or to the price of a visit to a physician in the United
States.

Another question you might want to ask yourself is whether an M-3
bought in 1963 by a speculating collector and kept in its original
packaging and never opened would have been a good investment, compared
to (say) a portfolio of stocks that achieved the performance of the
DJIA.  Actually, I can answer that one for you.  It would have been a
terrible investment!

-P.