1955 prices.....

[james_baker6]

A friend of mine gave me a 1955 Montgomery Ward photo catalog so I plugged a

few prices into a converter and this is what came out:

 

Contax IIa--$345---2006 dollars--2500

Retina IIIc-$185---2006 dollars--1340

Leica M3----$447---2006 dollars--3237

35/2.8 Biogon f/Contax-$249------1803

35/3.5 Summaron f/Leica-$96------695

[j_falth]

Hi,

 

I am somewhat familiar with the prices during the 1955 time period.

 

Quite possibly, the converter you used is a little shy of what equivalent 2006 or 2007 prices would be.

 

I have used a price equivalency scheme based on commonly used consumer commodity items for that period.

 

Given the loss of purchasing power over time, generally speaking, I should think a multiplier of about 10-12 might present a more realistic picture of the number of dollars needed to purchase the same items today.

 

It may not be exact, but from my experience some items may have fluctuated by a factor of ten, while other items may have changed by a factor of fifteen.

 

In any event, the multipliers I use, are good enough for government work...

 

and, maybe even better than the government provided indexes, that they would want you to use and believe...

[charles_stobbs3]

I was paying in the low $0.30's for gasoline in the early 1960's and was renting a small apartment on Beacon Hill in Boston for $85.00 per month. Inflation hurts.

[pico]

Good stuff! I have some catalogs from the forties and fifties. I will look for them.

 

FWIW, it seems that Leica has been watching over my shoulder all my life. I got my first M2

with 50mm Summicron in 1966 for $225. It hurt! Today, the M8 is similarly scaled against

my income!

[al_kaplan1]

Beacon Hill was ritzy back then! I had a two bedroom at 3 Willis Terrace behind the Roxbury Courthouse for $40 a month in '63/'64. I'm still shooting Leicas I bought in the 1960's, and still use the same Omega B-22XL enlarger that I used in that apartment. I wish we held up as well...LOL

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6344/1997/1600/img013%20blog.jpg self portrait in 1962 with the original Olympus Pen with a 28mm f/3.5 lens on Kodachrome II

http://bp3.blogger.com/_b7J54W1JOoc/Ri6deQ9-t7I/AAAAAAAAAOY/T8d0Y4wiFbg/s1600-h/blog+7.jpg self portrait a couple of weeks ago with a Bessa L and 15mm Heliar on Kodaclor Gold 200

[peter_naylor1]

With a few silly exceptions, like Coronet Midgets that sold for five bob back in the late 30s and now fetch huge prices, we should be thankful that most "classic" cameras sell for relative peanuts today compared to what they cost way back when. The most obvious example for me, being a bit of an Exakta fan, is the 1957-ish VX/Varex VX11a that can be picked up for around $100 in really nice condition today on Fleabuy. It cost far more in greenbacks 50 years ago, so when you consider the effects of inflation it's a damn bargain today.

 

I'm sure you guys can come up with similar scenarios but the Exakta one is always the case "par excellence" for me, in why collecting classic cameras is such a buzz!

[al_kaplan1]

Anybody remember the Nicca, that "cheap Japanese Leica copy" that our soldiers were bringing back from Korea? By the early 60's rows of used ones cluttered camera store shelves. The Nikkor lenses were still in demand but nobody wanted the bodies, even for ten or fifteen bucks each. If one broke, a rare occurence actually, it went in the trash, too expensive to fix.

 

It turned out that they were actually pretty damned well made cameras, and today they fetch more money that the Leica III-B they were copies of. That's probably due to rarity. People who bought a Nicca in 1955 threw it out if it broke. People who bought a Leica got it fixed. Still, the Great SLR Revolution hurt used Leica prices too.

The big New York stores in the early 1960's advertized used III-A's for $29.50, III-C's for $36.50, and III-F's for $89.50. A 50mm f/2 uncoated Summar was under $30 and you could talk them into throwing in a leather case and hood just to make the sale. Brand new Leitz lenshoods listed for $5. So did record albums.

[james_baker6]

A few more..... Rolleiflex 2.8C--$299 vs.$2166/ Contessa (folder)--$130 vs. $941/ Exakta VX w/prism & f2 Biotar--$392 vs. $2840/ Argus C4--$85 vs. $615..

By the way--The Contax and Leica in my aboue post both had 50/F2.0 lenses.

[LenMarriott]

Yashica A, $29.95, camera case, about $6. Purchased in Kingston, On. Canada in 1959. Not sure of the exchange rate at that time. Camera still working. Case pretty well shot. Best, LM.

[james_baker6]

Al, Didn't Nicca make the "Tower" brand of Leica clones for Sears in the 50's???

[summitar]

Al, buddy, you look a bit hostile and ticked off in your "bookend" photos. I'm sure you had a lot of laughs in between shots. I was in the Boston area in 1962-64, going to grad school at MIT, paid for by my rich uncle to prepare me for an all expense paid year long vacation in a tropical climate. While going to MIT, my wife and 3 kids and I lived on the second floor of a quite nice house in Arlington, complete with fireplace and sun room. The rent was around $125/month. My pay as a first John was about $450-500/month, which included base pay, quarters allowance, and the famous $47.88 that all officers (including 4 star generals)received for subsistence. We were poor but happy, but couldn't afford a 35mm camera until I arrived at my tropical holiday where I bought a new Konica Auto S2 for $35. Still have it, still works, and works a helluva better than I do, although we both now have metal(titanium in my case, special edition knee) and plastic parts.

[alex macphee]

There are plenty of these 'historical value' calculators on the 'net. I remember, as a schoolboy in about 1967, lusting after the new Pentax Spotmatic (when I should really have been lusting after girls), at which time its price was GBP 126. Today that would be around GBP 1500. I recently picked one up for about GBP 75. It was a joy to use. (In the intervening years, girls have cost me a whole lot more.)

[bigpat]

Alex set me thinking.In 1959 I left school and, as a young apprentice with no money,I spent my spare time lusting after high quality cameras in the local dealers windows,and high quality girls in the local college common rooms. I was a bit of a jack the lad as we say, and I had very little trouble getting the girls. Not so the cameras. Now, as a sixty four year old collector I am sitting surrounded by my high quality classic cameras. But guess what! NO GIRLS! Oh well, C'EST LA VIE. Thats life.As they say,youth is wasted on the young,and wisdom on the old.