Vintageness ( was Re: Serious Request For Moderation (On

From: Eric Chomko <chomko_at_greenbelt.com>
Date: Mon May 14 21:53:57 2001

Iggy Drougge wrote:

> Eric Chomko skrev:
>
> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
>
> >> Eric Chomko skrev:
> >>
> >> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Eric Chomko skrev:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sellam Ismail skrev:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to
> >> >> >> >> produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if
> >> >> >> >> mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man,
> >> >> >> >hence it's value relative to copies.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are copies less tangible?
> >> >>
> >> >> >No, more tangible, and that is the point! When speaking of rarity and
> >> >> >value one deals with supply and demand. The demand for copies of
> >> >> >originals can always met, therefore the price is low. The demand for a
> >> >> >unique item will drive the price of the item up as long as more than
> >> >> >one person wants it.
> >> >>
> >> >> My point is that Mona Lisa isn't rare since there are reproductions.
> >> >> Anyone who'd pay millions more for the "original" is an utter fool.
> >>
> >> >There are many fools based upon your assessment. Did you know that Gates
> >> >purchased
> >> >a painting for $30million a few years ago? Is he an utter fool? This is
> >> >not directly related to the arguement but is quite on-topic for the group
> >> >and this particular thread.
> >>
> >> Yes, he is.
> >>
> >> >Okay, two points...
> >>
> >> >Gates is worth what, $50billion? Half that? Maybe more or less? Let's use
> >> >$30billion to
> >> >make a point. Ratio $30million to $30billion is 1 to 1000. If someone has
> >> >a net worth of
> >> >$300K, then the 1 to 1000 ratio puts their expeniture at $300. Would you
> >> >spend
> >> >$300
> >> >for a "rare" computer (forget panitings for the moment)? Do you see the
> >> >point? To Gates spending $30million is not unlike a $300 lay out for us
> >> >poor slobs. Its obscene I know, but it is what it is. The worst part is
> >> >that I'd be hard pressed to show I got $300K in personal wealth. :(
> >>
> >> I really doubt I would, but of course I understand that rare items cost
> >> more, it's some capitalist principle. OTOH, if there were a replica
> >> available at a lesser price, I would buy that one.
>
> >But would you not feel somewhat cheated if the replica was passed off as an
> >original?
>
> Haven't I stated time and again that there is no difference? The question is
> why anyone would even bother to state whether it is original or not.
>

You're flat wrong! Agree to disagree. I wont't call you a socialist if you won't
call me a capitalist. But if you inisist, then I'll call you wrong.


>
> >Honest business, despite what you make think of the system overall, is at
> >least honest. Confusing capitalism with deception is a flaw that I have noted
> >with some folks that come from Europe. I see a clear difference.
>
> I agree, one should be honest.
>

Are you a socialist? Its no crime. I have been called it many times. I wear it
with
a badge of honor. But that comes from radical rightests within my own country.
I don't get you as being a radical leftist.

>
> >> >The second point is, suppose an organization like a museum or foundation
> >> >raise enough money to make a purchase like one for a rare painting, is
> >> >that such a bad thing? They put it on display for the public to see. Is
> >> >this a ship of fools in your book?
> >>
> >> Well, at least then it doesn't end up in Bill Gates' home, but they could
> >> just as well settle for a replica IMO. Many museums do, in fact.
>
> >But most folks want to see the orginal in a museum.
>
> But then again, they usually wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
>

That's not the point! A replica where the original is advertised is deception.


>
> >> >> >By your own arguement, no one here should collect an old computer based
> >> >> >upon functionality, as I can buy a new one than can out perform the old
> >> >> >ones. Therefore, no one should bother with older ones regardless of
> >> >> >model or type.
> >> >>
> >> >> In what way can any computer outperform another? Every computer is
> >> >> unique in its own sense, isn't that why we collect several?
> >>
> >> >Agreed. So why would a replica of a painting be any different than the
> >> >replica of a computer?
> >>
> >> Agreed. A computer replica is equal to the original, a replica of a
> >> painting is equal to the original.
>
> >In your world...
>
> Granted.
>

Well said...



>
> >Just don't expect others to believe it. And as I have said often before in
> >other posting forums, it may have to be a case where we simply must have to
> >agree to disagree.
>
> I think so, too.
>
> >> >> We don't use computers to run benchmarks. At least not most of the time.
> >>
> >> >True, but I think I missed the point of that.
> >>
> >> If that were all we used computers for, we would all just run what's cheap
> >> and fast, going by Sellam's argument. But then all computers (except for
> >> IBM PC clones) have something which is unique, something which made them
> >> sell in the first place.
>
> >But the term vintage or collectible brings on a whole new meaning.
>
> What meaning?
>

Value and worth. Both that can be measured with $$$$ (dollars). Call me a
capitalistic pig, but you'll only be giving me fodder for my next newsgroup!

Eric


>
> --
> En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
>
> optimus_at_dec:foo$ %blow
> bash: fg: %blow: no such job
Received on Mon May 14 2001 - 21:53:57 BST