Leica Prices, Speculation and Poetic Justice
A recent post, which I think might have been part of this thread, referenced the fact that many owners of current Leica M lenses obtained them during the special discount program that Leica conducted to placate owners of early M8s who were disappointed with them. As people who, between my wife and I, owned three M8's, I felt fortunate to have been able to buy several new lenses at greatly reduced prices and, in some cases, to be able later to sell them for a lot more, mostly on the auction site. It made up for some of the early M8's deficiencies which, of course, was exactly why Leica conducted the program, and it went a long way in my opinion toward keeping the M8 from being still-born. Indeed, it might have discouraged some very unhappy leica owners from organizing a class action suit against the Company. I actually got a widely distributed email that apparently went out to many posters on the Leica Users' Forum that talked about a Class Action, which, fortunately for Leica and us, never materialized.
Thus, early adopters of the first digital Leica M got some compensation for what many of them viewed as a camera that was defective right out of the box. Most of us who had M8's, even those of us who have since sold them and moved up to the M8.2 and then the M9, still have scores of B+W or Leica (made in Japan) UV IR filters to correct the color shift from black to magenta that the M8 produced. And we appreciated that Leica finally corrected the noisy shutter with the discreet mode in the M9, a fix that eventually was accessible via a firmware upgrade for the M8 that I gave to my son. Who knows, maybe Leica will soon provide LCD screens for the M9 that have resolution almost as good as some of the $500 digital point-and-shoots?
But I digress.
Most often, owning pricey Leica cameras and their pricey lenses has been a one-way street, particularly for digital equipment, which quickly depreciates.
However, when, as in the case of deeply discounted M lenses for early M8 owners, or in the case of the current dramatic shortages of lenses that has created a speculative sellers' market for M lenses, owners are able easily to recover what they paid for them, and, in some cases even make a nice capital gain on them . . . this is what is called poetic justice.
There is nothing immoral about this.
It would be different if this involved speculation in a critical commodity during war time, such as what happened with rationed gasoline during WWII in the U.S. and in England. In those situations selling a scarce rationed commodity for a profit, even a commodity as pedestrian as butter, was labeled "profiteering" and could earn one who violated the rules a large fine or even jail time — a situation that has recently been a topic in several segments in the highly acclaimed PBS MasterpieceTheatre series,"Foyle's War."
But, as another poster said earlier today in this thread, in the case of luxury goods that are in very short supply and in very high demand buyers and sellers are free to make their own market, and there is nothing wrong—indeed there is sometimes poetic justice—when collectors, enthusiasts and "prosumers" can essentially realize a capital gain by buying quality Leica equipment, holding it for a relatively short time and then selling it when the price rises, perhaps, as now, fanned by intense demand among new M9 owners and especially among the newly wealthy of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore.
My own approach in this market to pricing equipment that I no longer want, mostly to make room for new Leica gear such as an M9-P or an S2 kit, is to check the prices that are being fetched in Completed Listings on the big auction site as well as the Buy-it-Now asking prices on that site. I then ask only 5 to 10% higher than that, occasionally a bit more, for the lenses I want to sell. I feel no embarrassment doing this, and I do not feel any obligation to price what I want to sell for a lot less simply because one or more forum members complain about "selling above retail."
As another member put it earlier, to paraphrase, "Retail where and in what currency and when? With or without local taxes and shipping? "
Lastly, to get specific, why is there anything immoral or unethical about trying to get $12,950 for a Mint or mint- used Noctilux f/.095 when the big auction site lists a used one from Adorama in EX+ condition for $13,888 and shows a completed listing for another used one that went for $14,500?
