Price of Hasselblads

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I've been reading an article about Hasselblads. It says that in 1958 a complete 500c would have cost 244gbp.</p>

<p>Aged 16, I started working in 1958. Assuming I could have saved all my salary, it would have taken two years before I would have had enough money to buy one. Provided, of course, that the price had not increased in the meantime.</p>

<p>Had I been female, it would have taken rather longer. Females were paid 20% less for the same work!</p>

<p>I'm putting together a 1966 500c. The body, wlf and back are in really nice condition. I'm looking for a contemporary lens. When I have found that, I don't think I will have spent a great deal more than £400gbp in total.</p>

<p>It all goes to prove something...</p>

[rashed_s]

I cant find anything practical to prove here, usually a person pay for what he need most, while if he

couldn’t pay for it, he should just ignore it and find something else within his puget, Hasselblad

never been made cheap but always been made as a winning horse, is there a winning horse

comes cheap?

 

All of the best.

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Rashed S - I fear you read my posting rather more seriously than was intended!</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>It proves that products that are not collectors items drop in value over time. Also so many pros have moved to digital and sold their medium format film gear that there is oversupply in the market which lowers prices.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Most of all, it proves that very few people are still looking to buy such cameras. It's all digital now, you know... ;-)

[LenMarriott]

<p>Rashed, If I, as a young man, had followed your advice I would still have my ($59 CDN in 1957) Yashica LM and be taking very satisfying photos with it. Where was the person with your sage advice when I needed it? :-( Thanks for reminding us what is important. Sorry if it seems I highjacked your thread Mervyn. Best to you both. LM.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Prices in real terms have always fluctuated quite wildly. Remember there was a luxury goods purchase tax in 1958 of nearly 40% (!) as well, but you could get a bag of chips for 3d and a pint of beer for less than a shilling. Those essentials have now risen by over 60 fold.</p>

[Raymond W]

<p>I guess what Mervyn said was it costed 2 years' salary before and a whole lot less now. I paid big dollars for my Hassy set over 10 years ago and now people are telling me it worths little. Even thieves breaking in a photographer's house would leave his Hassy alone, I was told. But as long as I enjoy using it and not consider selling it, I don't see the drop in value as anything significant at all, other than I can get more Hassy gear cheaper.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

That was the point, wasn't it: was it in the past very hard to put a kit together, you can get the stuff for very little now. A pleasant 'big deal' for anyone interested in buying the stuff.<br>(And an "ah! why couldn't it have been like this way back when?"-moment for those who bought the stuff when it was still way too expensive.)

[photo5]

<p>Having owned a few Hasselblads, I wouldn't buy another one unless it was a very recent one. The older ones have material under the mirror that deteriorates causing a focus error. I'm a big fan of Zeiss lenses, they are among the best ever made, but I also believe modern optics from Bronica or Mamiya are equally as good.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Perhaps a final thought? A new A12 magazine presently costs 744gbp, including tax.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Mervyn,<br>

My first camera, an Ilford Sprite (127) cost £1 3s 6d, and the average wage in that same year was about £14 per week.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>If the year you mention was 1958, my salary, as a junior clerk in a law firm, was around 11gbp <strong>per month.</strong> Do you think 14gbp really was the average wage?</p>