"The `hunt' is also easier in certain locations than others, depending
on
what you're trying to find. In Silicon Valley, or any large built up
area, I'm sure the pickings are a lot easier than in say... the
northern reaches of Canada."
Naw. Sellam's got the Bay Area pretty much picked clean! :)
I completely agree with your premise, however. With a full-time+ job
and a family at home I hardly get to play with what toys I have more or
less search far and wide for new ones. eBay brings the search to me for
what I consider to be a reasonable incremental cost - on most items.
Auctions like:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4193&item=2086784
468 continue to blow my mind while items such as
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1247&item=2087268
115 give me the warm fuzzies.
Erik S. Klein
www.vintage-computer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin_at_classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin_at_classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Brian Chase
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:28 PM
To: cctalk_at_classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Help with pricing on vintage computers?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Mike wrote:
> >> > There are, and have been, for decades, valid mathematical and
> >> actuarial methods for determining the value of a given object based
> >> on several criteria, including of course supply and demand. Why
> >> should ending prices of eBay auctions all of a sudden supercede
that
> >> science?
>
> The science is wrong. That science is based on a supply that is
offered
> to the demand audience. And that demand audience has always been
limited
> and local (for the most part). With the internet, the demand now is
> expanded to millions of people.
>
> As far as the supply, it can be said that the supply has also
expanded.
> But the reality is that the supply, for the most part, was a fixed
number
> that has decreased since the items were manufactured.
>
> So we have an ever expanding demand with a shrinking supply. So,
while
> the model is correct, the parametric values are all wrong and need
> updating to reflect a global demand, now.
My argument on this thread would be that Ecomonics isn't really a
science in my eyes. So it's not that eBay is wrong or that the "science"
is wrong; it's just that there's no reasonable model for predicting
classic computer prices, yet.
Mostly, I feel it comes down to personal decisions based on any number
of factors, some of which include: amount of expendible income, the
amount of free time, location, and interest in the item in question.
If I didn't have a job and instead had plenty of free time, I'd
certainly be inclined to spend a lot more of that free time hunting down
bargains. But I don't have that sort of free time because I'm employed
full time. What I do get instead is a decent income in trade for that
time, and I can spend that income on equipment made available through
eBay. I'm willing to pay more money for items on eBay because it saves
me the time of hunting down the equipment on my own. When I look at the
opportunity cost of doing my own hunting, the cost of aggressively
hunting doesn't make any sense for me. I'd actually be losing lots of
money by doing it. Time is money. Great, so I find a $10 computer in
the wild that would've cost me $50 on eBay, but I spent two hours
finding it at an opportunity cost of $100 of lost wages. By doing
this, I've just shot myself in the foot. Instead of paying $50 for it
on eBay, I've effectively spent $110 for it.
The `hunt' is also easier in certain locations than others, depending on
what you're trying to find. In Silicon Valley, or any large built up
area, I'm sure the pickings are a lot easier than in say... the
northern reaches of Canada.
That doesn't mean won't look for bargains in my spare time--but there's
not a lot of that with my other projects. I also spend a lot of time
using and working with my computers, and reading the wonderful
ClassicCmp mailing list! In my case, I'd rather be spending my time
playing instead of collecting--but those are personal priorities.
-brian.
Received on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 15:07:01 GMT