Re: Special M6's

[dannyg1@IDT.NET]

Stephen,

Desirability, price and prospective sales frequency are all interelated but=
 wholly separate =

phenom's. All are products of perception while rarity alone reflects realit=
y based =

principle. =


Marc's point is well taken by me; I realise that actual sales are not confi=
rmable because =

they're private. Then again, citing unconfirmable evidence as a proof is no=
t truly =

responsible. Marvins LUG posted Ebay URL is of the same fabric, until tomor=
row at =

least (BTW, that URL is consistently frozen and no current updates are avai=
lable). =


Even then, is one Ebay sale anymore substantive than my one sale? Is Ebay a=
 popular =

venue for collectible Leica?  Chatterton, Hansen, Tamarkin (among many more=
) have =

sold many PADs for a premium and will buy them back at a premium over SI M6=
s. What =

of that?

My experience and position has no co-relation to your LA DJ one-liner ; I'm=
 trying to cite =

confirmable proof but, for some reason, my experience is never a reliable e=
nough =

counter to vague generalities. Why?

There is a problem in communicative style that is making this conversation =
quickly less =

substantive. References to 'flatlanders/flatearthers', 'Aktions speak loude=
r than words', =

'I'm stuck', LA DJ's, among other remarks, are reflective of a group of thr=
ee exaltation =

designed to discount my position as silly. This kind of denegration is unfa=
ir and uncalled =

for. I expect you to argue your case on its merits and I'll do the same.

Your argument is (finally) getting better but it's still not untouchable an=
d I don't think it =

ever will be. There is nothing 'amusing' in my position and the same applie=
s to yours. I =

hope you agree.

I never argue for concensus opinion and that bothers many. I'll never under=
stand why =

concensus is so valued, but I think that this is what has Marvin angered to=
 the point of =

flaming email. =


> Faced with evidence that all rare Leica is not desirable (a question
> you demanded the answer you), you dismiss Marc's answer because it was
> not Leica, and you dismiss my reply

I do not "dismiss" any substantive point, or opinion, any of you propose.  =
Your, Marc =

and Marvin's collective Leica knowledge is known, respected and admired by =
me, =

among many; this is _totally outside of the issue at hand and not something=
 I would ever =

even question, much less argue. Why do you see me as dismissive when it is =
my point =

of view that is the most roundly attacked position (in this case)? =


>That you sold your PAD to a dealer probably only means he had another pige=
on waiting > for it.It proves nothing about their real market value.

Possibly it proves little, but "nothing"? It does prove that a market exist=
s and it helps =

prove a number of the points I've proposed. Am I really the original, gulli=
ble 'pigeon' =

holding place in the fleecing line? =


 >Call Don Chatteron, he will also tell you the new instant collectibles ar=
e
> turning out generally have little market demand. But of course,
> maybe his experience doesn't count either.

But of course, my PAD _came from Don Chatterton. What of his experience? Di=
dn't he =

sell out _all of the PADs he had? Didn't he sell each of them for a premium=
? =


Is there a smaller market for SE's than for SI's (standard issue)? I never =
said, nor =

implied that there wasn't but that doesn't mean that there is only a fools =
market in these =

things. If it does, I'd like to be convinced of that as fact. =


> Rarity is just PART of the
> equation, the other part being demand which is often a fleeting=A0
> popularity.=A0=A0 Rare alone does not make it.=A0 For it to be desirable =
and
> valuable to Leica collectors, ready documentation and market value
> must be established--but=A0 that is not enough--they need to be popular
> too..

Exactly confirming my analogy to real estate. I never said, or implied that=
 'rarity was all =

there was to it'. Gold R3's, black enamel SL2's, 1/2 frame M2's may be hard=
er to sell =

but you do concede that they're worth a premium over SI versions on the cur=
rent market. =

My point is that the SE M6's are also worth more and that there is a (human=
) market for =

them. Some SE M6 variations, we also agree, are more desirable than others.=
 What =

exactly does 'readily saleable' mean?

> If its not readily salable, your stuck.=A0 The real issue is not whether =
a SE
> will command a premium in the used market over a normal version, but
> HOW MUCH money will the investor lose or gain by buying a SE.

We were never singularly discussing investing or investors. Simon asked for=
 a camera =

that would hold more of its value in the long term while he extremely caref=
ully used it. =

"How much" money one would lose on resale is the issue and my position is t=
hat even a =

50th anniversary CL, or a safari R3, lose less or gain plenty. Standard iss=
ue M6's on the =

market today come with a guaranteed $500-700 instant devaluation on receipt=
=2E AFAICT, =

PADs don't.

Which is a better bet?

Your counter question is do they sell? My answer is that by my experience a=
t least, yes =

they do. Do they sell on demand? I had only one dealer flatly refuse all in=
terest in the =

camera (Calumet). Every other formal dealer I offered the camera directly t=
o, except one, =

offered me more than I paid for the camera on the spot and on demand.

I intend no ire by posting this; though I've addressed issues very directly=
 and my words =

could be interpreted as heated, 70F degrees are intended . =


My regards to you,
Danny Gonzalez