1974 Tri-X 120--people are nuts

[darkroommike]

I really don't want to post the link but there's a chap that has 20 rolls of Tri-X on Ebay right now, he wants $100.00 That's right 5 bucks a roll for Tri-X that expired 42 years ago. I offered him less but he rejected my bid. This isn't a gripe but B&H has Tri-X 120 for $5.45 per roll right now so I wonder how these folks get their prices.

 

[pentaxuser]

You doubtless have heard the phrase: "There's one born every minute". All such phrases are based on eternal experience of human behaviour in sufficient quantity to make the phrase both truthful and statistically significantly truthful.

As a species we remain flawed


pentaxuser

 

[DWThomas]

And he probably unrolled them to see what they looked like! If they are in sealed original packages maybe there is some collector value attached to them. Tri-X that old I wouldn't expect to be that useful -- and certainly not at $5 a roll.

 

[Sirius Glass]

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/09/no-one-ever-went-broke-underestimating.html

 

[ic-racer]

I offered him less but he rejected my bid.

I'm curious as to why you wanted it?

 

[rayonline_nz]

A camera club member got a partially used bulk roll (Plus-X 125) of someone else and gave it to me and he said free and don't return it to him. Expired in the early 1970s. Works fine with ID-11

 

[darkroommike]

I'm curious as to why you wanted it?

I use it to test cameras for function, etc. But when I can buy fresh film for the same price I won't use 42 year old film. I should add that the properties of old Tri-X are a bit different from the current stuff so if it were perfectly stored (again for 42 years) it would have some interesting properties.

 

[darkroommike]

And he probably unrolled them to see what they looked like! If they are in sealed original packages maybe there is some collector value attached to them. Tri-X that old I wouldn't expect to be that useful -- and certainly not at $5 a roll.

It would be collectible if still "bricked" but the picture shows that the rolls are loose, still wrapped and boxed but loose. And Tri-X 120 was 59 cents per roll in 1974 so that's one heck of a mark up!

 

[railwayman3]

I quite enjoy experimenting with old types of films occasionally, but I obviously keep this entirely separate from the use of fresh film for all "serious" photography.
(I have three 127 Ilford Selochrome rolls dated 1966 to try out some time ! However, these were given to me, and I certainly wouldn't pay a silly price just because a film is old.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

And he probably unrolled them to see what they looked like! If they are in sealed original packages maybe there is some collector value attached to them. Tri-X that old I wouldn't expect to be that useful -- and certainly not at $5 a roll.

And he probably unrolled them to see what they looked like! ====> ROTFLMAO!!

 

[John Koehrer]

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/09/no-one-ever-went-broke-underestimating.html

If you think about it though, "underestimating the intelligence" says the people are more intelligent than estimated.
That's the same as underestimating the enemy

To be accurate it should be ""underestimating the stupidity" would be more appropriate.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I agree, but I was quoting someone famous rather than someone intelligent like me for example.