Collectors out /there?

[Drew Bedo]

This is pretty much a users site, but many of us use vintage and antique equipment. How many consider themselves to be collectors?

Even if collecting is a minor part of your life.

Another topic:

I was thinking about the vintage items that are sky-high desirables; the Lanthars, Heliers and low S/N Summicrons etc (you pick your own "Holy-Grail", but other stuff also brings collectors interest.

When I was a teenager in the 1960s, I got a few WW-II era, surplus bayonets through mail-order for <$5 each. Today they are all well over $70 and one of them brings hundreds. Sadly, they have all been gone for decades.

So what would it be today? What item(s) that are commonly available today will be the high-dollar scarce desirable of our grand children's time? Think more generally than just photography. Will a pristine, in-the-box, NOS example of something sold on TV be "IT"? Think of a Sham-Wow or Snuggie. What about some variety of miracle non-stick cookware, or maybe some specific brand of bed sheets? Will the know-it-alls on some iteration of ?Antiques /roadshow in 2046 think my computer desk is a classic example of user assembled particle board furniture?

[bob carnie]

I do not collect cameras, but I do collect prints and have a pretty decent collection going, which I plan to expand on over the next few years. I know people that collect negatives.

I photographed a young man's collection of sneakers in pristine shape that was apparently worth over 50k .. I am talking sneakers here.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am not a collector, but an accumulator. I am finally learning to let things go and it feels great.

[Dan Fromm]

Drew, these days Heliars and Lanthars are penny ante crap. The real money is in fast double Gauss types. Dallmeyer Super Six, a handful of lenses from Taylor Hobson, fast Boyer Saphirs and the like.

By chance I accumulated some of today's cult lenses, have divested nearly all. For most LF photographers' purposes a modern plasmat beats all of them that cover 4x5 or larger, not to mention 2x3 and smaller.

Predicting what's cheap now that will appreciate sharply in the next 40 years is a fool's game.

When my late friend Charlie Barringer (co-author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium) received his death sentence he discussed selling his collection with Peter Coeln of Westlicht. The word from Vienna was that many of Charlie's treasures, e.g., all those lovely Contaxes with their lovely 50 mm Sonnars, were no longer wanted badly by many people. This isn't to say that none of his treasures were valuable -- his Super-Q Gigantar and Barry Lyndon lens brought really silly money -- but most of them weren't worth all that much.

If he'd wanted to leave his heirs more money he should have given the money he spent on photographica to Vanguard and let it ride. But then he wouldn't have had the fun of accumulating all that stuff or of using some of it.

[Bob Salomon]

Drew, these days Heliars and Lanthars are penny ante crap. The real money is in fast double Gauss types. Dallmeyer Super Six, a handful of lenses from Taylor Hobson, fast Boyer Saphirs and the like.

By chance I accumulated some of today's cult lenses, have divested nearly all. For most LF photographers' purposes a modern plasmat beats all of them that cover 4x5 or larger, not to mention 2x3 and smaller.

Predicting what's cheap now that will appreciate sharply in the next 40 years is a fool's game.

When my late friend Charlie Barringer (co-author of the Zeiss Ikon Compendium) received his death sentence he discussed selling his collection with Peter Coeln of Westlicht. The word from Vienna was that many of Charlie's treasures, e.g., all those lovely Contaxes with their lovely 50 mm Sonnars, were no longer wanted badly by many people. This isn't to say that none of his treasures were valuable -- his Super-Q Gigantar and Barry Lyndon lens brought really silly money -- but most of them weren't worth all that much.

If he'd wanted to leave his heirs more money he should have given the money he spent on photographica to Vanguard and let it ride. But then he wouldn't have had the fun of accumulating all that stuff or of using some of it.

Strange, about 7 years ago I started to acquire some Contax IIa and IIIa, mostly red dial cameras, with lenses from 35 to 180mm. About 5 years ago my wife and I were at a picnic and a camera dealer was also there and I mentioned to him that I had acquired these cameras. Most of which cost me no more then $150.00 each. He said that he had an active market for these and gave me several times what I had paid for them! Of course, the market may have changed somewhat since 2011 when he bought them from me. But I think that there probably is a market out there still that is not obvious to the Zeiss groups.

I had exactly the same thing happen with a small collection of Exacta VX cameras and lenses a year or two earlier.

[Drew Bedo]

Of course . . .Pre-collecting IS a fool's game. I was speaking to the historical whimsy of it; what the old (mid 1960S) Rowan and Martin show irreverently called "The Flying fickle Finger of Fate". I myself have a Leica M-3 with single stroke film advance. That used to be desirable. Now the older double stroke gear train brings the interested money. Anyway; how many M-3s were ever made (I know the approximate number is known) . . .a lot. Someday they will glut the collectable market and someone's grandchildren will just junk them.

My mother-in-law has several sets of china she calls "French Limoges" which she feels should be kept in Fort Knox and only used for weddings and landmark anniversaries. They make for nice heirlooms of course, but not national treasures. Some pieces bring noticeable money on e-Bay, but I suspect that very few actual buyers were born after 1985 or 1990.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...]By chance I accumulated some of today's cult lenses, have divested nearly all. [...]

By chance I have one or two collectibles, but while they are rare in their condition, how they render is entirely subject to opinions. What is needed then is a metric regarding opinion$. :) Everybody has an opinion... you know how the rest of the expression goes.
.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I myself have a Leica M-3 with single stroke film advance. That used to be desirable. Now the older double stroke gear train brings the interested money. [...]

Which shows that collectors interested in early serial numbers care more for rarity. The double-stroke Leicas went through a few modifications to make them more useful.

[Jim Jones]

I've rarely discarded cameras when they have been replaced by something better since retiring from a Navy career that precluded accumulating much. I've also replaced a few cameras that I had long ago such as a Mercury II and a Practica FX3. As I near 84, weeding out some of the lesser items seems wise. Maybe someday.

[Stephen Thomason]

I'd admit to being a collector of sorts, but my wife would be quick to point out that I must also add the noun "accumulator," as did the earlier poster.

I "collect" not based necessarily on what may be worth the most money in the future, but what I haven't yet experienced using. I like to give new life to old things - maybe someone will do the same for me someday!

Some would ask "how much is enough?" Well, maybe when you have three of everything?? I'm working on it!

[Alan Gales]

I'm not a collector.

I figured that to afford the stuff I will use I can't afford the stuff I won't use. :)

[jnantz]

hi drew

i collect and i use.
i use nearly everything i have, some more than others.

[Two23]

I am a sort of genetically inclined collector, LOL. I really don't have a specific collection of camera gear, but it does seem to be falling into three groups:

1) Pre-Civil War lenses (for you outside of U.S., that's roughly 1840-1865.) I really love lenses from the 1840s and have two Petzvals.
2) Premium lenses (Heliar, Dagor,etc.) from 1910 to 1930. For 4x5, 5x7.
3) Premium "hand" cameras. I especially love fancy 6x9 folders and have 1914 Kodak Special, 1928 Voigtlander Bergheil, 1929 Cocarette Luxus, 1937 Bessa RF. Also have 1942 Leica IIIc with 1940s lenses, 1954 Rolleiflex, and am now looking for a pristine Voigtlander Vito III. I don't have any cameras from 1960s & 1970s, but do have a pristine Nikon F3T with three AiS lenses.
4) Box camera collection including a 1909 Kodak Panoram (120 roll), but I'm selling that collection down and will keep just a few.

I only buy stuff that is usuable and in not quite mint condition. I use everything I buy. If I haven't used it in a couple of years I sell it to buy something else. My original goal was to have something from every decade starting with 1840, but I'm not as interested in that now. I want a nice, smaller collection of premium stuff that was the ultimate in its day. I'll probably sell off some folders and buy a 1960s Hassleblad 500C and three chrome lenses as well as a Leica M6 eventually. I don't want to end up being one of those guys with a room full of hundreds of cameras/lenses, but do want a nice selection of premium stuff from 1840s on. I am fascinated by these old cameras/lenses and often wonder what the original owner did with them.

I also collect old photographs, mostly "real photo" postcards from around 1910, mostly only from the Northern Plains. I have quite a few now--railroad scenes, threshing/farming, homesteading, ...... fascinating stuff!


Kent in SD

[Two23]

But I think that there probably is a market out there still that is not obvious to the Zeiss groups.




I suspect the new Chinese upper middle class is buying a fair amount of this stuff. I've sold a couple of things to them, and have bought from them too. For some reason, right now the Japanese seem to be selling a lot of really, really nice Post War stuff. Maybe the owners are getting older now and thinning the herd, and there isn't much domestic market? I bought my nearly pristine Nikon F3T for a great price from a Japanese collector/dealer.


Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

The Japanese are selling in a bad economy. They buy when money is easy. Just like anybody.

Not that long ago they bought a lot of big classic 60 and 70s cars. Paid big money, then their economy sank and they sold them at a loss.

Chinese have an expanding upper class and they want valuables.

So it goes.

I collect enlargers. Anybody else?



I suspect the new Chinese upper middle class is buying a fair amount of this stuff. I've sold a couple of things to them, and have bought from them too. For some reason, right now the Japanese seem to be selling a lot of really, really nice Post War stuff. Maybe the owners are getting older now and thinning the herd, and there isn't much domestic market? I bought my nearly pristine Nikon F3T for a great price from a Japanese collector/dealer.


Kent in SD

[Stephen Thomason]

"I am fascinated by these old cameras/lenses and often wonder what the original owner did with them."

Yes, indeed. If those cameras and lenses could talk of where they have been and what they have seen...............and I prefer to think that it is only pleasant stuff, like children, families, spouses, weddings, births, new homes, graduations, beautiful landscapes, things of emotional significance to the photographer, happy days in the lives of the subjects, etc. Perhaps a remnant of the life forces of things still remain in the molecular structure of the equipment, and the collector's spirit can sense it. Or then, maybe not, and maybe we just like the good old "stuff." Whatever it is, we are giving the "stuff" new life and appreciation. Perhaps that is all we can do, and hope those who come after us are inclined to do the same.

[Darin Boville]

and Barry Lyndon lens brought really silly money

The Zeiss 0.7? How did he acquire it? Who bought it? How much?

--Darin

[Jody_S]

I refuse to call myself a collector. Just because I have a room full of cameras and brass lenses upstairs doesn't make me a collector. Hoarder, maybe.

[Dan Fromm]

Darin, Charlie had friends in Oberkochen. Westlicht bought his collection. The Barry Lyndon lens brought 60,000 Euros plus the buyer's premium. I have no idea who bought it in the auction.

[Corran]

I resent being called a collector. I've seen collectors. Rooms full of Brownies, 35mm P&S cameras, and general "junk" that they certainly don't use. Sometimes they take a "test roll" to make sure a camera works in their backyard, and then tell everyone how "sharp" this or that lens is and proudly display horrible scans done on their office all-in-one printer/scanner/faxer or whatever. Yuck. Of course that's not "all" collectors, just a lot of them.

But yeah I've got a lot of cameras, most of which came from estate sales, job lots, and craigslist. If I paid eBay prices I wouldn't be able to afford to eat, but generally speaking I haven't paid a cent for most of it - such as when I bought out the estate of an old pro photographer with dozens of cameras/lenses for a couple hundred and then sold one accessory for $900 on eBay. It's fun and exciting to find stuff like that.

If anything I've gotten into WWII-era cameras, both pre- and post-war German stuff and the post-war boom of Japanese "copies" of the German cameras/lenses. That whole era is cool and even people who couldn't care less about photography/cameras are fascinated by the stories of German-made cameras and how they influenced the Russian and Japanese camera designs (or were taken as war reparations). My interest in this area stems from an identical story in the area of microphones - just like Zeiss, the company known as Neumann was split in two for E/W Germany and their microphone designs taken by the Russians. I have a bunch of Russian clones of the German mics, as well as the modern German models. Fascinating history. My audio class always loves that historical story when I discuss microphones.

[Tin Can]

Shure...:)

[Corran]

I see what you did there ;).

[Paul Ewins]

I seem to be in the happy position of collecting stuff that other people don't care about. It took me four years of trawling eBay to find a first generation Schneider Symmar, but when it did show up it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars. Likewise my Pentax 6x7 stuff has been bought based on its user price, not its rarity, and the early stuff shows up a lot less often now than just a couple of years ago. The downside is that I doubt that I will ever make a killing on any of this, but that's okay, I enjoy the hunt more than bragging about the value.
Right now collecting early digital seems to be where the "smart money" is going. Kodak DCS and maybe Apple Quicktake and whatever other first or second generation gear can still be found cheaply.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have a few collectibles that would drive Leica collectors crazy.
My plan is to sell them on the 'bay starting at $1, and let the
bids fall where they may. I just hate the inflated BS I see there.

I cannot know if the effort will level the market, but I'm too old to
care and financially secure.
.

[jp]

I think 1980's/90's European/Japanese cars have probably bottomed out and will start to appreciate, but it takes valuable space to store them.
For hoarders rather than collectors, any metal that's hard to refine or mine is probably cheap with low energy prices at the moment and will be expensive when electricity goes up or better environmental restrictions are imposed.

For photo items:
Good enlargers have probably started to increase in price. If analog hype is sufficiently trending strong, prices could increase more.
Good B&W prints by respected photographers of the 20th century I think will appreciate in value.

[Tin Can]

A collectable enlarger is first a strong and adjustable chassis. Clean condensor head, point source lamp with a well shaped-designed lamp housing is a good value now.

Color heads using variable tints of glass or gel were never designed for eternity. They need service parts which are gone. Fortunately Aristo seems to still produce their tubes which also need periodic replacement. Neon shops are dwindling.

Which brings me to my point, replacement heads may be needed, but not yet...

Enlargers that use transient electronics will be doomed to hacking failures.

First principles will reign if consumables remain available. DIY may fill that coming void.

DRM with control of copyright, content and images can now stop music from latest iPhone, censor imaging on the fly and disable any content. Facebook has automatic censorship. Digital printers have long controlled counterfeit printing. Document control is easy. Redacted emails and hard copies are done by AI.

We are on the verge of a Brave New World.

Save Organic Printing. (SOP)

Listening to http://www.wfmt.com/programs/the-midnight-special/ as I always do Saturday night. In observance of equal time for PC content WFMT Chicago receives 50% corporate sponsorship.

[LabRat]

For reselling, anything that was the top-of-the-line or pro grade stuff (helps if it gets a "cult" following on the net), has a better chance of increasing in value than some garden variety brand or price point stuff... Think of the many 35mm cameras + lenses over the years, and most can be has for little $$$, but there are still examples of things that can fetch good money now... Remember that most of this stuff is not being made today, and some examples of the same stuff still made might look like, but don't work like items of old (darkroom gear is a good example)...

My new rule is to be VERY careful to not get rid of anything that I can't afford to replace if the prices go bonkers in the future... (Almost embarrassed to mention that I was looking at a huge pile of LF stuff a decade ago that I didn't think I would use again, and I am now scrambling to find every piece of it for possible future use...) Needs change!!!

Steve K

[goamules]

I've been a collector all my life. Early on, most of what I collected had to be things I found, i.e. free. The idea that a young teen would need to buy each and every item in a collection, like coins or stamps, wasn't possible. So I dug antique bottles out of old log cabin home sites and such. When I moved out West in the early 1990s, I loved hunting arrowheads, and gathered quite a collection. We also metal detected and panned gold for a while. Those types of things always have the memories of the finds, which are valuable.

But I love history, so I have also collected things that have to be acquired with money. When I was about 12, me and a friend love WWII stories and movies. We went to yard sales every weekend, and bought the old WWII equipment the "old" vets were selling (they were in their 40s at the time). Guns, vintage camping equipment (lanterns), antique tools (not the ones everyone else chases), vintage electronics and stereos, and yes, lenses are the main things. There are others. I've found that it's in a man's nature to want to collect, for several deep seated reasons.

I've followed a few rules. I collect what others are not that interested in. That allows me to buy cheaper than what the others are chasing. When other middle aged men want Harleys or classic Indians, I buy 1960 Hondas. When others were collecting Golden Oak period furniture, my wife and I were buying Mid Century Modern. Often, what I start collecting is very cheap, but sometimes other people catch on, and I seem to ride a wave of increasing prices. Lenses were like that. When I started wetplating in 2007, A Dallmeyer 3B was about $125, and Voigtlander petzvals under $100.

Another rule is that I try not to spend income from my job on my hobbies. Yep, that's right. Every lens and most other items I've bought are with "fun money" that I create by selling other items I no longer want. At one time I had many thousands of dollars worth of lenses. I started with a single $100 purchase of two. I sold one for $120, and kept the other. I took that $120, and did it again...and again...and again. In about 7 years, I built quite a collection, and I'm "in the black" with all of them. Even if I have to sell my American radial drives for $100 a piece, It's all profit.

Another rule is collect what you love, not to speculate or invest. If you see a peak period (all collectibles have peaks, and many bubbles pop), start selling it. Sell it all, and start over with something else that you love, and have a hunch is the "leading edge" of what others will collect. Generally, nothing made since about 1975 is worth anything, and I won't touch it. Some may make money in 20 yeas selling pokemon stuff, or rap memorabilia. But I don't love it, so I don't care.

As you can see, all my above points to this fact: You cannot count on "investing" in any collection, they can all go down leaving you holding the bag. You better love what's in that bag. And buy it very cheaply. Buy high? You're gonna lose.

[LabRat]

I've been a collector all my life. Early on, most of what I collected had to be things I found, i.e. free. The idea that a young teen would need to buy each and every item in a collection, like coins or stamps, wasn't possible. So I dug antique bottles out of old log cabin home sites and such. When I moved out West in the early 1990s, I loved hunting arrowheads, and gathered quite a collection. We also metal detected and panned gold for a while. Those types of things always have the memories of the finds, which are valuable.

But I love history, so I have also collected things that have to be acquired with money. When I was about 12, me and a friend love WWII stories and movies. We went to yard sales every weekend, and bought the old WWII equipment the "old" vets were selling (they were in their 40s at the time). Guns, vintage camping equipment (lanterns), antique tools (not the ones everyone else chases), vintage electronics and stereos, and yes, lenses are the main things. There are others. I've found that it's in a man's nature to want to collect, for several deep seated reasons.

I've followed a few rules. I collect what others are not that interested in. That allows me to buy cheaper than what the others are chasing. When other middle aged men want Harleys or classic Indians, I buy 1960 Hondas. When others were collecting Golden Oak period furniture, my wife and I were buying Mid Century Modern. Often, what I start collecting is very cheap, but sometimes other people catch on, and I seem to ride a wave of increasing prices. Lenses were like that. When I started wetplating in 2007, A Dallmeyer 3B was about $125, and Voigtlander petzvals under $100.

Another rule is that I try not to spend income from my job on my hobbies. Yep, that's right. Every lens and most other items I've bought are with "fun money" that I create by selling other items I no longer want. At one time I had many thousands of dollars worth of lenses. I started with a single $100 purchase of two. I sold one for $120, and kept the other. I took that $120, and did it again...and again...and again. In about 7 years, I built quite a collection, and I'm "in the black" with all of them. Even if I have to sell my American radial drives for $100 a piece, It's all profit.

Another rule is collect what you love, not to speculate or invest. If you see a peak period (all collectibles have peaks, and many bubbles pop), start selling it. Sell it all, and start over with something else that you love, and have a hunch is the "leading edge" of what others will collect. Generally, nothing made since about 1975 is worth anything, and I won't touch it. Some may make money in 20 yeas selling pokemon stuff, or rap memorabilia. But I don't love it, so I don't care.

As you can see, all my above points to this fact: You cannot count on "investing" in any collection, they can all go down leaving you holding the bag. You better love what's in that bag. And buy it very cheaply. Buy high? You're gonna lose.

So, do you think that means I can't retire to Bora-Bora after I make a killing on selling my "investment" Beanie Baby collection!?!!!!! :-O

Steve K

[Tin Can]

I agree with Garrett 100%.

And without any shame of 'hoarding' which is something vastly different.

Just as most collectors, I trade up.

The money I spend on LF came from my decades of motorbike collecting, restoring, showing and riding. I have one bike now.

I like a collection I can use and not fear to lose.

I preferred Swap Meets, but they are dead. :(

[drew.saunders]

My camera "collection" is just the top of a bookshelf with some cool looking old cameras, none of which cost me more than $15. I think the Ricohflex (a Rolleicord copy) might be worth more than $15 now (a quick ebay search show people paying stupid amounts of money for it), but it's fun to have a TLR to play with, so it stays on the shelf. I have an old Kodak from ~1918 with the original manual, and the manual is really fascinating. I have my Grandfather's Kodak six-twenty, which has plenty of familial "value," but is of no collector value. I also have a couple of 1950's era "point and shoots," and it's fun to see how they made all-manual cameras easier to use way back then.

I suppose my Ebony might be worth something in a few decades, but, barring severe financial distress, I'll keep it as long as I can use it. I don't think any of my LF lenses are at all rare or collectible yet, and I doubt any of them will be until long after I've shuffled off my mortal coil. For now, the bookshelf is full, so the "collection" will stay the same.

[Dan Fromm]

I agree with Garrett 100%.

<snip>

I preferred Swap Meets, but they are dead. :(

Randy, I somewhat agree with you and Garrett. That is, much of my accumulation, including the good stuff, was bought because no one else wanted it. This includes Zeiss Luminars bought before people learned how to recognized one that wasn't engraved "Luminar," my Boyer lenses and all of the cult lenses I've sold.

There are still a few swap meets around, in fact I missed one today 'cos I slept in. I earned the sleeping in the hard way, got up at 03:30 yesterday, flew to MDW, drove to a small town north of Milwaukee to attend a memorial service, then back to MDW and was in bed at 01:00 this morning.

The one swap meet I can get to now has vendors who are well aware of eBay. Time was when camera show vendors didn't use eBay. Back then it was possible to arbitrage between camera shows and eBay. Also to buy low on eBay. fr, eBay.de and a couple of national craigslist equivalents and sell high on eBay.com. Buying low from dealers' sites and selling high on eBay.com worked too. Similar arbitrage opportunities are rare these days but arbitrage financed my accumulation.

My motto: Good equipment is good. Good equipment bought at low prices is better.

[Tin Can]

I'm not in this for the money.

I wish I had been using LF from the 50's.

I got very bad fatherly advice.

I am in it now for fun and 'maybe' when I am dead my step-daughter's grand children will benefit. The kids are already teenagers, and the next generation is coming sooner than we think.

I always act as if I will die in the next 15 seconds yet make 20 year plans.

A state of mind that eliminates disappointment...

[goamules]

Same here Dan, I used to be amazed at the pricing disparity between different places to buy camera equipment. That is opportunity knocking. But today, with everyone getting direct ebay brain implants, it's very difficult to buy or sell more than 1% more/less than the going rate. Except for rare lenses, that don't have established pricing. Those are the LeClairs and Gundlachs and Struss's that very few people every hear about, and don't sell on ebay enough to create a price structure. We've all seen the crazy prices, high and low, that continue to this day. But not with a Dallmeyer Six or 3B. It's like the difference between buying a Ford Mustang and a Hudson. You may find a good deal on a Hudson, but you never will on a clean Mustang - everyone knows them.

Hence, I seek out the Hudsons and lenses that I know are well made, but no one is chasing. Some sellers try to lump them into the same price as the "good stuff", but I won't bite.

[Drew Bedo]

For years I belonged to the group that sponsored " The Houston Camea Shoe and Sale".

The double blow of digital imaging and the internet took its toll. The last show was sometime before 2005 I think. In its hay-say there were over 250 paid tables for venders and a few unpaid tables for clubs and groups. The highest attendance was around 2500. That would have been in the late 1880s and everything declined from that point.We tried a few swap-meet type wvwnta at a public venue, but outside interest was pretty low.

A few of the old club members still meet once a month to talk about collecting cameras and drink coffee.

[Bob Salomon]

For years I belonged to the group that sponsored " The Houston Camea Shoe and Sale".

The double blow of digital imaging and the internet took its toll. The last show was sometime before 2005 I think. In its hay-say there were over 250 paid tables for venders and a few unpaid tables for clubs and groups. The highest attendance was around 2500. That would have been in the late 1880s and everything declined from that point.We tried a few swap-meet type wvwnta at a public venue, but outside interest was pretty low.

A few of the old club members still meet once a month to talk about collecting cameras and drink coffee.

You might want to re-read this and correct it or repost it.

[Bob Salomon]

Randy, I somewhat agree with you and Garrett. That is, much of my accumulation, including the good stuff, was bought because no one else wanted it. This includes Zeiss Luminars bought before people learned how to recognized one that wasn't engraved "Luminar," my Boyer lenses and all of the cult lenses I've sold.

There are still a few swap meets around, in fact I missed one today 'cos I slept in. I earned the sleeping in the hard way, got up at 03:30 yesterday, flew to MDW, drove to a small town north of Milwaukee to attend a memorial service, then back to MDW and was in bed at 01:00 this morning.

The one swap meet I can get to now has vendors who are well aware of eBay. Time was when camera show vendors didn't use eBay. Back then it was possible to arbitrage between camera shows and eBay. Also to buy low on eBay. fr, eBay.de and a couple of national craigslist equivalents and sell high on eBay.com. Buying low from dealers' sites and selling high on eBay.com worked too. Similar arbitrage opportunities are rare these days but arbitrage financed my accumulation.

My motto: Good equipment is good. Good equipment bought at low prices is better.

Back in those days they had the latest issue of Shutterbug with them to check prices.

[Drew Wiley]

I think James Bond had a shoe camera.

[Dan Fromm]

Back in those days they had the latest issue of Shutterbug with them to check prices.

Bob, the Shutterbug that used to be showed asking prices, not transaction prices. I sold through it. Some of my listings led to long phone conversations with a little haggling.

And it didn't tell people that lenses in RMS thread that had diaphragms and were engraved Zeiss-Winkel were early Luminars. One had to know. Similarly, people didn't know that a 100/6.3 lens in barrel engraved Zeiss was a Luminar. I once bought one such at a camera show for $25. It was indeed a 100/6.3 Luminar. These days (choose one) people know more or the level of ignorance is lower.

Like eBay today, S'bug was a poor guide for rare items' prices.

[tgtaylor]

I'm not a collector and only look at gear when a need exists. But I do think that there has been a pronounced uptick in the price of used film gear.

Last week I was considering a split-image focusing screen for the Pentax 645NII and while I had the camera out just for curiosity I installed the battery pack in the 645N which had been “broke” for 2 or 3 years: The mirror had locked in the up position and wouldn't come back down. Instead of sending it in for repair, I purchased the NII and even pirated parts from the N for it. For years the N sat gathering dust and on several occasions I resisted the temptation of throwing it into the trash. But when I installed the battery pack last week it suddenly sprang to life and the mirror dropped back down! Everything works as it should: auto-focus, focus indicator, shutter, shutter speed... etc. What to do with it now: Send it off for a CLA and replace the parts that scrounged from it or sell it?

Checking ebay for parts the 645N still commands a fair price – higher that I thought it should be. Having 2 645's would mean that I could travel with both - one loaded with B&W and the other color - and work off the same lens set and lightweight tripod.

Thomas

[Two23]

Checking ebay for parts the 645N still commands a fair price – higher that I thought it should be. Having 2 645's would mean that I could travel with both - one loaded with B&W and the other color - and work off the same lens set and lightweight tripod.



Wouldn't it be easier to just pick a camera that used interchangeable backs?


Kent in SD

[tgtaylor]

Interchangeable backs is the way to go but I started with the Pentax K1000 and was so impressed that when I moved to MF I stayed with Pentax and got the 67II. Then one day I decided to "replace" the 35mm system with the 645N for the negative size and portability. At the time the 645N the logical choice since I had amassed a collection of 67 lens and only needed the 67 to 645 adapter which I got. Too bad Pentax didn't engineer the 645 to take interchangeable backs but I have been very satisfied with their product line and their MF lenses are outstanding.

Thomas