Post by tino November 17, 2010 (21 of 60)
|
|
Ooops, sorry!
I didn't know about the Zeus command! May I do something to fix it?
Tino
|
|
|
Post by Lunna June 26, 2012 (22 of 60)
|
|
More than a year later, an update to my ancient thread. I just found this SACD in pristine used shape for all of 30 dollars. So much for the Weisenheimer who posted in this thread back when that I was not being reasonable at thinking 35 dollars would be a fair price for this disc. Fortunately, most of the posters here on SA-CD.net seem to be really interesting folks, with lots of valuable things to say. You all keep me lurking :) Sadly, like anything else, there's always a few bad eggs who hang out here (and I equate greediness and arrogance with this), but thankfully, the vast majority of you all don't fit that negative mold.
To the unnamed poster - I guess you have to try to make your money somehow. Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You ask a bunch of collectors and enthusiasts to part with a rare disc they enjoy and then get upset when you're not offered a bargain? By your own admission it took you over a year to find a deal. I'm glad you did. But you got lucky to get the price you got, and should recognize that most of us were saying what it would cost for us to part with it, not making offers on some sort of trading bazaar.
For myself, I still have my copy. To say that I don't regret not selling it at the price you wanted is an understatement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ubertrout said:
You ask a bunch of collectors and enthusiasts to part with a rare disc they enjoy and then get upset when you're not offered a bargain? By your own admission it took you over a year to find a deal. I'm glad you did. But you got lucky to get the price you got, and should recognize that most of us were saying what it would cost for us to part with it, not making offers on some sort of trading bazaar.
For myself, I still have my copy. To say that I don't regret not selling it at the price you wanted is an understatement.
Unbelievable that people would expect something rare and OOP to be sold for less than what the market would demand. Really, Lunna, if you can't or won't pay the price, then go somewhere where you can find it, but don't call us unreasonable for expecting top dollar for something rare. You're the one being unreasonable. Don't call us greedy and arrogant if your demands don't meet with what the market holds. I recently put up an OOP boxset of the old TV series, Here Come the Brides. Someone was willing to pay $148 for it. What should I do, put it up for what it originally sold for? That's what the market is all about. If the people bidding would have only bid up to $30, I would have sold it for that. More than us being arrogant, you're ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by jackan June 26, 2012 (25 of 60)
|
|
Lunna said:
More than a year later, an update to my ancient thread. I just found this SACD in pristine used shape for all of 30 dollars. So much for the Weisenheimer who posted in this thread back when that I was not being reasonable at thinking 35 dollars would be a fair price for this disc. Fortunately, most of the posters here on SA-CD.net seem to be really interesting folks, with lots of valuable things to say. You all keep me lurking :) Sadly, like anything else, there's always a few bad eggs who hang out here (and I equate greediness and arrogance with this), but thankfully, the vast majority of you all don't fit that negative mold.
To the unnamed poster - I guess you have to try to make your money somehow. Sheesh.
I don't see how asking for 1/3 of the current market value is being a weisenheimer or bad egg. If you want to point fingers, why not do it at the companies who discontinue sales when there is still a market, not those that participate here. It's nice that you got what you wanted, but to come back and gloat seems low to me. And after re-reading the posts I don't see any greediness or arrogance on their parts, but more so on yours.
|
|
|
Post by lennyw June 27, 2012 (26 of 60)
|
|
What is a weisenheimer?
|
|
|
Post by jackan June 27, 2012 (27 of 60)
|
|
lennyw said:
What is a weisenheimer?
ask uncle google
|
|
|
Post by Lunna June 27, 2012 (28 of 60)
|
|
My point was not to gloat at all, whether it came across as that or not. My riposte, if one wants to call it that, was in response to having been lectured previously by certain posters (one or two in particular) as to what is "fair" or what is "reasonable." The implication was that I was not being reasonable in seeking to purchase an item at approximately double the original price ($35.00).
It is one thing to say, "I'm keeping my copy - it's not for sale." I fully understand and appreciate that. It's quite another thing, however, to create an inflated market for something (and I know for a fact this is done, as I have spoken with some major online record/cd stores and they have told me as much - people buy up certain items with the exact objective of inflating the original purchasing price) and then to justify the ridiculous prices being set by pointing to that very same artificial market. Kind of a circular argument there, I would say. (Yeah, I know, SOMEONE, somewhere, may eventually pay the price that's being asked for - but that doesn't justify price gouging - call me a commie if you like - which I ain't).
For what it's worth - I went back to my old posts, and sure enough, the first thing I found was the snide remark about 300 dollars (if it was a joke, it was a bad one - hey not all of us have 300 or 100 dollars to spare to enjoy a SACD). As before, no one is going to convince me that an OOP SACD is worth the kinds of prices that some on amazon are asking (emphasis on 'asking'). Hey, I've got plenty of stuff that's OOP too, and when I go on amazon to sell, I usually ask for HALF the price (or even less) than some of the absurd and, yes, flat out greedy, prices people are setting for items.
In the end, one of the most perspicacious comments I received to my last post was that, ultimately, the record companies themselves are a part of the problem. That said, the laugh will be on those who are seeking such outrageous amounts if and when Universal re-releases these SACDs.
I still love this website - one of the best around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So my comment was about $300 was snide? I meant it as more of a "woo!" comment. Did anyone else find it snide?
I've been looking for a copy of the Starker Bach Cello Suites SACD forever for $35 or less (that's pretty much my limit, which I make rare exceptions for SHM discs for). But I don't think anyone has a responsibility to sell it for that amount. I don't even blame Universal Music...they put out 20 Mercury SACDs when the major labels were already beginning to abandon SACD, and they're now all available on HDTracks (not in 3-channel, sadly, but that's a HDTracks problem).
Sometimes the market rocks; sometimes it sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lunna said:
It is one thing to say, "I'm keeping my copy - it's not for sale." I fully understand and appreciate that. It's quite another thing, however, to create an inflated market for something (and I know for a fact this is done, as I have spoken with some major online record/cd stores and they have told me as much - people buy up certain items with the exact objective of price) and then to justify the ridiculous prices being set by pointing to that very same artificial market.
This is a pretty standard economic situation that raises interesting ethical questions. Before we continue pounding on each other, let me try to lend some clarity. Bear with me; I am an economist and business school professor and we professors tend to be long winded.
Companies that produce in small batches, including SACD producers,face a difficult problem: how much to produce. Sometimes they undershoot the mark and with more customers than there are products to buy, the disc must by definition be rationed. Typically, the product is rationed on a first-come, first-served basis. If A happens to be the first to order the disc, A gets it. If B was willing to pay more than A, then B is just out of luck. Alternatively, the company could have raised the price. (Economists call this "rationing by price.")
Of course, A might realize that B (and maybe others) wants the disc and try to resell it. In other words, A could ration the disc by price. Sometimes one customer hordes a bunch of copies of the product and rations by price. If this situation sounds like a common one, it is. Just think of rock concerts or sporting events and the role of ticket scalpers and ticket brokers.
We normally do not believe it is unethical for firms to ration by price (that is, raise prices on popular items.) So why might some think that it is unethical for A to ration by price? Is it because the original seller had chosen not to ration by price? Was the product "supposed" to be available at below the market-clearing price? I think different individuals will give different answers to these questions.
So like most economists, I can explain what is going on but I can also support two completely opposite interpretations of whether it is ethical.
|
|
