Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/10/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Special M6's
From: dannyg1@IDT.NET
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:09:44 +0000


You're not making a consistent argument and though I understand the point of your post, 
I don't understand where the disagreement begins. You wrote:

> While I have generally denounced SE Leicas, there are some noteworthy
> quality exceptions such as the M6J (yes its overpriced, but is is a
> great camera), the 50th Anniversary Leicas,  and the Platinum M6.
> These seem to be in demand, unlike Leica's cookie cutter SE's of
> not-to-great events.

What exceptional 'quality' does a platinum or 50th anniversary M6 have? One of these 
celebrates a date in Leica history, but then the "I'm stuck" does that as well. Seems to me 
that you're OK with status quo acceptable collectibles editions and 'against' models 
without a timeline of acceptability. Pardon the chide but you're speaking like a typical 
'play it safe' dealer.
> No doubt you disagree, and will rush out to buy a "I'm Stuck" M6.  Oh
> well, I warned you.

I agree that the Einstuck is a bit ugly and far overpriced and I said exactly that in my first 
post that started this tangent of conversation . I doubt the Einstuck will hold its new 
value but, we both agree that it won't ever be more than slightly possible to buy one for 
the price of a standard issue M6. Anyway, I've made my point very clearly: I'm citing of 
SE M6's that sell for close to normal M6 prices as my central examples.

Earlier you wrote:

>> Rarity alone does not make a Leica valuable or desirable, as the deluge of special editions is  proving.<<

Though you've given a couple of examples to prove this point, the fact of the matter is 
that these are the exceptional contradictions and not representive of what is, 
generally/most commonly, a safe rule. Rarity in Leica is like location is to real estate.

I must be missing something obvious in this thread. Even a green R3 sells for close to its 
new price, while a normal R3 can be had for less than a Nikon 6006. There's alot of 
clique-ish 'I know better than you' from your 'side in this debate, but not one of you can 
cite any SE Leica that was failure enough to not command some sort of a premium value 
over a normal version, later in its resale market price. AFAICT, all of them hold their 
value better, on a percentage basis, than a normal version.

There's plenty of examples in every SB issue for my side of the equation (besides my 
personal experience). Where's the solid evidence to back up Marc, Marvin and yours? 

Danny Gonzalez

BTW: I sold my PAD to a dealer, not a private party.