How rare are they? (Really)

[michr]

Any seller worth his salt does not need to use the word rare. If he is advertising something rare, potential buyers will recognise that immediately.

Absolutely. In general, after buying online for quite a few years, the use of any superlatives and exclamations reduce or eliminate my interest in the item. The photos and description of the item's condition are all that is necessary to convey what I need to know about the item. The seller's opinion of the item doesn't interest me in the least.

 

[Pioneer]

I have been told that I am quite rare...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well Dan, one is probably enough. The same goes for me.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I have been told that I am quite rare...

I'm sure, but in your case it means barely cooked, nearly raw, not uncommon.

 

[John Koehrer]

^^^^^Izzat like half-baked?

 

[Pioneer]

^^^^^Izzat like half-baked?

That is EXACTLY what my wife said...

 

[Drew Bedo]

Consider the Rollei SL26, with 28,000 produced. I have one. It's worth less than $50. Is this a rare camera? 28,000 isn't a big production run for a camera, but rarity, like the descriptors antique and vintage, is subjective. For every one who adheres to a strict definition of the term "rare", a thousand more will throw it about carelessly. I've seen everything from Kodak box cameras to Argus C3s described as rare on eBay. Obviously those terms are meant to attract eyeballs and the money of those that don't know any better.

And the production run for the Leica M-3 was HUGE (100,000?) but the real world price for even a good "user" is over $500. I think that if only 25% of the M-3s now in storage became available, the asking price would dip below $100.

On the other hand, I now wish I'd bought every brass lens offered at any camera show in the 1980s 1nd 1990s for less than $10. And yet, the Kodak 2-D and Deardorff view cameras have only appreciated a bit since then: Certainly well below 40%. The same is, I think, true for the various models of press cameras.