Rolleiflex Old Standard From 1934- What Should I Offer?

[arthur_smith1]

The seller let me borrow this beautiful Rolleiflex Old Standard for the weekend, to take it through its paces. I shot a roll of Pan F Plus today, and loved it. It's in clean vintage condition, everything works well, including the frame counter. Sure, the slow speeds do seem a little slow, but to be expected at 89 years of age. 

Ignoring the auction site prices, what does this community think is a reasonable offer for this camera? No, It's not a 2.8F, but it's a piece of history. What should I offer for it?

[Niels - NHSN]

Why would you ignore auction prices? Completed auction prices is the best indicator of current monetary value.

If you must add a layer of nostalgia on top of that, only you can put a value on that.

That aside, these old ‘flexes are truly charming - if a little slow to use - but that’s part of the attraction. Congratulations on finding a good sample.

I have two street photography books by a Japanese photographer who is exclusively using that camera. It is quite amazing what can be accomplished with this camera in the right hands.

[John Seaman]

I only know the UK market. Given that it's film tested, and in great condition, I would expect it to go for around £100.

[Colin O]

Quote

Ignoring the auction site prices...

I would also query the virtue in this. Everyone likes a bargain, but if the seller can sell it on eBay for x dollars, why should you cheat them out of that price (or thereabouts)? Plus, you should actually be willing to pay a premium for the peace of mind you get by being able to test your purchase first, which generally isn't so easy with eBay purchases. You should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. Having said that, look only at "Sold listings" when checking eBay prices. Current, unsold listings are no indicator of what the market actually pays.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Colin O

[James G. Dainis]

McKeown's Price Guide lists that camera as $70 -$150

[arthur_smith1]

On 6/11/2023 at 10:03 AM, James G. Dainis said:

McKeown's Price Guide lists that camera as $70 -$150

I wouldn't trust that book as a credible source- hopelessly out of date. 

[arthur_smith1]

On 6/10/2023 at 11:37 AM, Colin O said:

I would also query the virtue in this. Everyone likes a bargain, but if the seller can sell it on eBay for x dollars, why should you cheat them out of that price (or thereabouts)? Plus, you should actually be willing to pay a premium for the peace of mind you get by being able to test your purchase first, which generally isn't so easy with eBay purchases. You should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. Having said that, look only at "Sold listings" when checking eBay prices. Current, unsold listings are no indicator of what the market actually pays.

So I should pay more? That makes no sense. 

[kmac]

Asking prices are from US$240 to US$400. Sorry, it's not easy to ignore auction prices. Sold listing prices are much lower, except for one or two at US$300. Going by that info, your camera is worth about US$150. With these cameras, it's not the condition so much, it's more about demand, there's a supply, but not a lot of demand, only top-notch ones are in demand and will fetch higher prices.

If the camera was loaned to you, was there an option to buy? Make an offer and see what the owner says. Start at eighty, do a Rick pawn stars offer, and go a little higher if need be.

[Colin O]

7 hours ago, arthur_smith1 said:

So I should pay more? That makes no sense. 

you don't pay more just for the sake of paying more. You pay for the added value of being able to "road test" your purchase - and the peace of mind that gives you. Like I said, you should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. The aim (I would hope) is that nobody gets swindled out of any money.

[arthur_smith1]

17 hours ago, Colin O said:

you don't pay more just for the sake of paying more. You pay for the added value of being able to "road test" your purchase - and the peace of mind that gives you. Like I said, you should pay a fair price for you - but also for the seller. The aim (I would hope) is that nobody gets swindled out of any money.

I live in America. The 'value" of things are determined by what someone is willing to pay for them. Without criticism of the transaction. This indeed is the definition of a Free Economy. 

[Colin O]

6 hours ago, arthur_smith1 said:

I live in America. The 'value" of things are determined by what someone is willing to pay for them. Without criticism of the transaction. This indeed is the definition of a Free Economy. 

Fine. Offer the seller $75, if they don't know any better. You'll get a bargain, and the nice feeling of having cheated the seller out of a fair price for doing you a favour.

Or if you want to offer a fair price, then don't ignore eBay. You said yourself that value is determined by what people are willing to pay. So why are you willfully ignoring what people pay? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Colin O

[James G. Dainis]

On 6/12/2023 at 10:24 PM, arthur_smith1 said:

I wouldn't trust that book as a credible source- hopelessly out of date. 

 The latest McKeown's 12th edition was published in 2006; quite some time ago. I wonder if the prices in the book would be higher than since eBay started flooding the market.

Most of the offers on eBay seemed to be highly optimistic and got no bids. Offers within the McKeown's price range did get bids.

[orsetto]

Previous replies summed it up neatly. Whether we like it or not, since its rise to dominance nearly thirty years ago, eBay has been the one and only metric for used camera pricing. If you want to know the current demand and value of a camera or lens, you search for it on eBay, filter the results to show only "sold" examples, and average the prices the item sold for over the past few months (in the same condition as the example you're considering).

Then you can break it down a little further to work out a mutually satisfactory deal for you and the seller. Lets say the average recent sold price on eBay in this condition is $200. Selling on eBay costs a roughly 14% commission, and entails the hassle of packing and shipping (and hoping an obnoxious scammy buyer doesn't decide to return the camera and stiff the seller out of additional return shipping fees). Traditional used camera dealers are quicker and easier but will offer far less to the seller: often just 35%-50% of current eBay sold prices. So one could quite reasonably offer an in-person, for-cash seller approx 15% - 25% below the going eBay price (offer $160 for an item that typically fetches $200 on eBay).

Individual situations may vary in terms of the buyer/seller dynamic. You might factor in how well you know the seller (will they remain in your life as a friend or will you never see them again), what their motivation to sell is (are they desperate for cash or just idly want to unload a surplus camera), and whether you think the seller had enough friggin brains to do their own eBay price check beforehand (which even my long-deceased grandmother knows to do at this point, but...).

Such considerations might lead you to offer significantly less than (or closer to) the going eBay price. i.e., I wouldn't be comfortable buying a camera from a social acquaintance for a ridiculous lowball price, because I'd feel bad and they might feel resentful if they realize later they let it go too cheap. With a total stranger, the onus is more on them to know the value of what they are selling: if they seem happy to accept a lowball offer, theres really no ethical dilemma. Of course the risk of a too-lowball offer is annoying the seller, who may just walk away in disgust instead of negotiating to an agreeable counter-offer. 

I agree with previous replies that there is indeed a definite, tangible value to a seller allowing you take a vintage camera home for an extended film test before purchase (or declining). The certainty of knowing it either works perfect or needs repair before laying out the cash avoids a ton of potential aggravation and hassle you'd otherwise experience with eBay or a web dealer. 

The precise dollar value you place on that peace of mind is up to you, but its worth something. Personally, I'd value the in-home trial at the differential between average eBay sold price and the discounted cash price I'd typically offer an in-person seller. Without a trial, I'd offer $155 to $175 for an in-person purchase of a $200 camera. With in-home trial, I'd gladly offer the full average eBay "sold" price on a properly-functioning item.

[arthur_smith1]

13 hours ago, James G. Dainis said:

 The latest McKeown's 12th edition was published in 2006; quite some time ago. I wonder if the prices in the book would be higher than since eBay started flooding the market.

Most of the offers on eBay seemed to be highly optimistic and got no bids. Offers within the McKeown's price range did get bids.

Which is why you should not look at "asking" prices. People can ask whatever they want. Which does not mean they will ever sell at asking prices. 

[arthur_smith1]

9 hours ago, orsetto said:

Previous replies summed it up neatly. Whether we like it or not, since its rise to dominance nearly thirty years ago, eBay has been the one and only metric for used camera pricing. If you want to know the current demand and value of a camera or lens, you search for it on eBay, filter the results to show only "sold" examples, and average the prices the item sold for over the past few months (in the same condition as the example you're considering).

Then you can break it down a little further to work out a mutually satisfactory deal for you and the seller. Lets say the average recent sold price on eBay in this condition is $200. Selling on eBay costs a roughly 14% commission, and entails the hassle of packing and shipping (and hoping an obnoxious scammy buyer doesn't decide to return the camera and stiff the seller out of additional return shipping fees). Traditional used camera dealers are quicker and easier but will offer far less to the seller: often just 35%-50% of current eBay sold prices. So one could quite reasonably offer an in-person, for-cash seller approx 15% - 25% below the going eBay price (offer $160 for an item that typically fetches $200 on eBay).

Individual situations may vary in terms of the buyer/seller dynamic. You might factor in how well you know the seller (will they remain in your life as a friend or will you never see them again), what their motivation to sell is (are they desperate for cash or just idly want to unload a surplus camera), and whether you think the seller had enough friggin brains to do their own eBay price check beforehand (which even my long-deceased grandmother knows to do at this point, but...).

Such considerations might lead you to offer significantly less than (or closer to) the going eBay price. i.e., I wouldn't be comfortable buying a camera from a social acquaintance for a ridiculous lowball price, because I'd feel bad and they might feel resentful if they realize later they let it go too cheap. With a total stranger, the onus is more on them to know the value of what they are selling: if they seem happy to accept a lowball offer, theres really no ethical dilemma. Of course the risk of a too-lowball offer is annoying the seller, who may just walk away in disgust instead of negotiating to an agreeable counter-offer. 

I agree with previous replies that there is indeed a definite, tangible value to a seller allowing you take a vintage camera home for an extended film test before purchase (or declining). The certainty of knowing it either works perfect or needs repair before laying out the cash avoids a ton of potential aggravation and hassle you'd otherwise experience with eBay or a web dealer. 

The precise dollar value you place on that peace of mind is up to you, but its worth something. Personally, I'd value the in-home trial at the differential between average eBay sold price and the discounted cash price I'd typically offer an in-person seller. Without a trial, I'd offer $155 to $175 for an in-person purchase of a $200 camera. With in-home trial, I'd gladly offer the full average eBay "sold" price on a properly-functioning item.

I am offering a very fair offer. If he agrees, great. If not, no harm no fowl. I don't think a trial should command a premium. That was his suggestion, not mine. 

[John Seaman]

3 hours ago, arthur_smith1 said:

I don't think a trial should command a premium.

Agreed. It just means that the time and cost entailed by a full film test is borne by the buyer, not the seller.

[Niels - NHSN]

In my first answer I was naively thinking that OP was thinking of making a more generous offer than completed auction prices would indicate - obviously not the case. I don't know why I got that impression.

Letting a prospective buyer test the camera for a week before money have even changed hands, is an unusually generous and trusting gesture IMO, and does not deserve a lowball offer.

A completed auction sale figure for a camera described like the one in question would be a fair price and OP would still come out on top knowing exactly what he gets before committing - not facing the potential nasty surprises and headaches as is often the case in dealing with eBay etc.

If bargaining is really found necessary for whatever reason, I would suggest it to be within the amount it would cost the seller to list and sell it on eBay.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[orsetto]

9 hours ago, John Seaman said:

Agreed. It just means that the time and cost entailed by a full film test is borne by the buyer, not the seller.

Nowadays, nearly every second-hand camera is a pig-in-a-poke mystery, ala "Lets Make A Deal" (what will you offer for the unseen camera in an opaque box behind the dark curtain being presented by the smiling huckster?). Guarantees and genuine honesty come at a higher cost, usually from a handful of professional specialist dealers (where "film testing" is a rarity: they'll just have the thing gone over by a tech they trust pre-sale, then offer you an after-sale warranty period). When an eBay seller claims "film tested", my usual response is to roll my eyes and continue scrolling to another listing (invariably "film tested" translates to "double the typical asking price for merely taking my word that everything is peachy"). The sellers alleged "film test" doesn't interest me: I wasn't there when they did it (and can't verify if/how/when they it).

So a private seller allowing a potential buyer to take home a camera and personally test it prior to a purchase commitment (or any money changing hands) is widely considered a remarkable, anomalous gesture by many of us here. Whether you choose to reward the sellers trust by offering a bit more than you would for a totally random camera is of course a personal decision. Everyone wants a bargain at the lowest possible price, so its understandable some might not see the point in rewarding what should actually be the prevailing policy for all transactions. In my case, I'd probably offer a percentage premium over lowball (just to nudge the universe in the direction of more such buying opportunities).

 

[kmac]

Strictly speaking, this thread has no real purpose unless the OP conveys to us the eventually outcome. The OP has offered a "very fair offer". It would be nice to know what it was, after the completion of the deal, if a deal is actually struck. And any offer/price adjustments that were made, if any.

[arthur_smith1]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:38 AM, kmac said:

Strictly speaking, this thread has no real purpose unless the OP conveys to us the eventually outcome. The OP has offered a "very fair offer". It would be nice to know what it was, after the completion of the deal, if a deal is actually struck. And any offer/price adjustments that were made, if any.

A gentleman never discloses such information. That's how I was properly raised.