Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/16

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] New RF Buyer...
From: "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 03:03:07 -0500

> Steve LeHuray wrote:
> 
> "You should also consider which lens will hold it's value the best in the
> long term--I would wager it will not be the CV."

David Morton replies:
>
> Er...that rather depends if you calculate the depreciation as a percentage
> of the initial investment or in absolute terms.
>
> In the UK the Leica 28mm f2 sells for UKP1225, it's worth about 70% of that
> in a private sale in mint used condition, so carrying it out of the shop has
> cost you UKP360. The CV 28mm f1.9 costs UKP335 brand new.
>
> In other words, for the CV to suffer more depreciation than the Leica lens
> in absolute terms, you'd have to mess it up so badly that you have to pay
> someone over UKP25 to take it away. :-)


Good points David. But I will maintain in the long run you come out ahead
with Leica gear. To give you an example: About 15 years ago I bought a
beat-up black paint M2, it came with 3 chrome lenses and I paid $450 for the
lot. Last year I sold one of the lenses (21/4.0) for $1200. This year I sold
the other 2, a 35/3.5 for $300 and a 50/2.0 collapsible for $400. I still
have the beat-up M2 and use it everyday and in it's current condition
(mechanically excellent, cosmetically, shabby) is easily worth $4000, I have
seen these advertised for $6500 in similiar beat-up condition. And let me
say I do not think of Leicas as an investment, my mind just not think that
way (I am probably the only guy in the world who ever sold a rare, classic
Porsche for less than he paid for it). I was only trying to make the point
that when you buy quality it pays dividends in the long run.

sl
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] New RF Buyer...)