collecting cameras future value

railwayman3 · Dec 14, 2014

benjiboy said:
You're probably right Richard, but like any antique or art dealer you need to have a great deal of specialized and detailed knowledge to not get your fingers burned.

The problem with investing in most "collectables" is that (unlike stocks and shares) there is no open market in buying-and-selling which can establish, at any given time, their current market value. One of the few collectables where there are independent and accurate catalogues produced are postage stamps, but the value of those depends a lot on condition. A clean mint 1d Black, in the condition it was issued in 1840, would sell for many times its "catalogue" value.....yet many millions were issued, numerous copies still exist, and a poor or damaged copy can still be bought for a few £.

But, even with the benefit of catalogue valuations, a philatelic investor buying-and-selling successfully still has to cover a dealer's profit, or an auctioneer's commissions and charges, and much will depend on being able to find a willing buyer at the time you want to sell.

Steve Smith · Dec 14, 2014

Mainecoonmaniac said:
I don't buy houses to flip

Another one of those phrases where I know what it means but I don't know why it means it.

Steve

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 14, 2014

Warning on investing cameras. There could be The Great Analog Gear investment crisis. .

My view is treat cameras as photo gear to be used to make photos and houses as shelter. Both are not investment schemes for me.

benjiboy · Dec 14, 2014

I only regard my investment in cameras and lenses as investments in my pleasure.

randy6 · Dec 14, 2014

Some would argue leica's are an investment. All of my equipment is operational not shelve queens. I just shoot a roll through my rolleiflex 2.8b I have to get more paper and chemicals to view the results. Since this forum is titled antiques and collecting I would have thought there would have been some reply's from hard core collectors. Maybe most are just collecting to use. I don't have much money invested in my stuff I can make a profit today easy I don't know about tomorrow.. But I guess if values continue to drop I can get some nice gear cheap.
I did sell off all my mid range and low end stuff just kept the best. I do have a 4x5 omega d3 or 4 I forget, enlarger that no longer gets much use those used to cost quite a lot now you can pick most darkroom equipment for nothing.
Thanks for everones replys

Dan Fromm · Dec 14, 2014

Yes, some would argue that Leicas are an investment. They tell that to their spouses, not to their financial advisors, who would laugh at them.

I've made a little money by arbitraging between other markets and eBay, mainly with lenses and accessories. This is no longer easy for two reasons. First, there are more people searching for good opportunities than when I began and they are better at searching than they were when I began. Secondly, with the exception of a relatively few cult items the bottom has fallen out of the market for used photographic equipment. My most lucrative deals have been lenses I bought out of curiosity for very little money for which cults later developed.

A practical example. The late Charlie Barringer was a very serious collector of Zeiss and other high end photographic equipment. Before he died he discussed what his collection might bring with Peter Coeln of Westlicht. Charlie had some rare gems -- a Barry Lyndon lens, a Super-Q Gigantar -- and many rather pedestrian items. For example, several dozen Contax IIs with 50/1.5 Sonnars, all in lovely condition. Peter was very negative about the pedestrian stuff. His estate sold to Westlicht for pennies on the dollar. The rare gems brought good money at auction. Much of the pedestrian cameras and lenses went to eBay where they brought much less than Charlie had in them.

If you want to make a small fortune from a collection of photographic equipment, spend a large fortune accumulating it.

cliveh · Dec 14, 2014

Film cameras are not a financial investment, they are just nice machines to have in order to appreciate their design and the way they whirr and click and clump.

ambaker · Dec 14, 2014

If you want to "invest" in cameras, your will need to spend a fair amount of time learning the market. Places like KEH know what they can pay, and what they can get, out of a camera.

It is not a get rich quick scheme. Rare cameras worth big money, found at a yard sale for cheap money, is just that. Rare! Maybe one or two in a lifetime, even if you continuously hunt them.

If it is marketed as rare, or a collectors item, then the value has already been recognized and taken.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

randy6 · Dec 14, 2014

Sounds like not much use for an "Antiques and Collecting" portion of forum. What Mr Fromm say's sounds very lucid. I'll continue to pick up items I like but I will only spend very little anymore. The rare items I still have I also like and use.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 14, 2014

SchwinnParamount said:
Cameras are no more of an investment than cars are. As soon as you drive it off the lot, you've lost 10% You open a camera box and put a roll of film through the camera, you've decreased it's "value". If I want to get richer, I invest in a mutual fund. If I just want to preserve my cash, I buy a bond. If I want to have fun and exercise my creative muscle, I buy a camera. If I cannot afford to lose value in a camera (if I were to sell it), I wouldn't buy it in the first place. In any case, it is always a trade off. I may not sell the camera for what I bought it for, but in the course of ownership, I *used* it. That's worth something.

Ibuy high and sell low.maybe not a good methodbut I'm very good at it.

randy6 · Dec 14, 2014

I pay 10% to 1/3 present value I haven't been hurt yet I have sold most my stuff already.

Theo Sulphate · Dec 14, 2014

cliveh said:
Film cameras are not a financial investment, they are just nice machines to have in order to appreciate their design and the way they whirr and click and clump.

Those are my feelings as well, plus the enjoyment of the photos they can produce.

So-called "made to collect" or commemorative cameras have an opposite effect for me: I wouldn't want a "Royal Danish Wedding" Leica over an ordinary one. Actually, I wouldn't want it at all. For historical events, I'd be more interested in seeing the Speed Graphic Joe Rosenthal used or the Bell & Howell of Abraham Zapruder.

I've always liked Jason Schneider's views on camera collecting; there are many unusual and unappreciated cameras out there, as well as common ones that are very good at what they do.

Jonathan Van Matre · Dec 14, 2014

I sincerely doubt that even the sagest of camera collectors is able to match, let alone exceed, the performance of the S&P 500.

If you are seriously considering something as an investment, you can't consider it in a vacuum. You have to weigh it against the other opportunities available to you.

Invest in the financial markets, cash out 2% of your earnings annually and spend that money on cameras you will actually take out and shoot. You will almost certainly come out ahead of any camera collector.

randy6 · Dec 14, 2014

S&p 500 Christ, I'm just asking if some cameras will hold there value or increase in the years to come. Come on I'm not saying dump your life savings into it or make it your retirement.

pbromaghin · Dec 14, 2014

Jonathan Van Matre said:
I sincerely doubt that even the sagest of camera collectors is able to match, let alone exceed, the performance of the S&P 500.

If you are seriously considering something as an investment, you can't consider it in a vacuum. You have to weigh it against the other opportunities available to you.

Invest in the financial markets, cash out 2% of your earnings annually and spend that money on cameras you will actually take out and shoot. You will almost certainly come out ahead of any camera collector.

+1
I was about to press submit on a reply exactly like this one back on page 1, but decided to butt out.

Photo Engineer · Dec 14, 2014

Actually, about 10 years ago there was a report that the best investment over the years was in original Model Trains (Lionel and American Flyer mainly) which had appreciated in value more than the stock market over the last 60 years.

I studied the Greenberg pricing of models was shocked to see how much things had appreciated. I have seen a Blue Comet (Lionel original) shell only going for nearly $1500. This changed rapidly as soon as that report came out, but still applies. The new Lionel Big Boy appreciated over $1000 (out of about $2000) or nearly 30% in one year.

Who knew?

PE

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 14, 2014

Gives hope for those that invested in Beanie Babies

SchwinnParamount · Dec 14, 2014

randy6 said:
S&p 500 Christ, I'm just asking if some cameras will hold there value or increase in the years to come. Come on I'm not saying dump your life savings into it or make it your retirement.

Relax Randy. We're just playing the tin can and string game. Let it play out for a while and the folks on the thread will end up cursing the federal reserve and talking up investing in gold Nikon cameras.

randy6 · Dec 14, 2014

I'm fine. Perhaps people would read this thread and decide to relinquish there hasselblad and linhofs at 5 bucks a pop and be thankful they sold them just in time. I'll be there to pick them up.

SchwinnParamount · Dec 14, 2014

You pick up a Hasselblad for 5 zops and I'll double your money. Heck, I've got a sawbuck right here that says I will.

Helinophoto · Dec 15, 2014

Well, for me it's a big difference between "investing", where you are actually speculating in gear (which may not be a good way to earn money), and buying the "good stuff", or the "best stuff", which will keep at a high-value, because you want/can.

If you purchase a Rolleiflex 2.8F now, you will get it much cheaper than when it was new (historical price level), but you will have to pay more today than you would if you were to buy it 2 years ago.

A Hasselblad 503CW will probably never cost as much as it did when it was new in the shops, but if you buy it now, you will get it cheaper than you will next year, and the value will probably be pretty stable or increase slightly over time. (not enough to favor speculation)

Personally, I've bought the "best" that I can buy in most categories, simply because this was the top of the line "back when" and is now affordable, affordable but still quite expensive, $1000 is expensive to me for a camera from the 50's anyway.

I am also thinking about the generations after me in the family, that might one day open some old boxes in an attic and find some real gems to use/sell whatever (I am probably dead anyway) I know I've opened my share of old boxes, only to find some old and crappy 35mm consumer-cameras form the 70's.

More fun marveling at a Rolleiflex 2.8F or a Hasselblad 503CW or the Canon 1v etc

Mainecoonmaniac · Dec 15, 2014

Here's one fallout from collectors speculating. This could drive the cost of cameras for folks that use them. Just like house flippers driving up the cost of houses for familys that want to start a home.

Jonathan Van Matre · Dec 15, 2014

SchwinnParamount said:
Relax Randy. We're just playing the tin can and string game. Let it play out for a while and the folks on the thread will end up cursing the federal reserve and talking up investing in gold Nikon cameras.

Haha, precisely. I was responding more to the subsequent direction of the thread than Randy's original question.

Count me out of the federal reserve discussion, though. That's when the hair-pulling and food fights start.

flavio81 · Dec 15, 2014

Dan Fromm said:
Charlie had some rare gems -- a Barry Lyndon lens, a Super-Q Gigantar

Dan,

I think you are already aware that such an item was just a joke made by Zeiss engineers?

I guess it's still a collectible.

blockend · Dec 15, 2014

The best investment is in film and paper and the images of people and places you can leave to your community or grandchildren. By comparison cameras and lenses are tomorrow's landfill, no matter how rare or pretty.

collecting cameras future value

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency