Insuring "vintage" Hasselblad V equipment as non-pro

now be sure to realize what "replacement" actually translates in $$.on that 50 year old camera n accessories. ask the agent to tell you exactly what n how replacement is calculated and let him give you a quote as if you put in a claim for your stolen gear. ill bet tgey give you a song n dance but will never commit.

they arent paying out what you think... save your money in a slush fund on par with the premiums and you'll be very surprised how much money you saved by not getting the insurance. my stuff was all bought new and i was lucky to get 25% of its true replacement vakue. oh yeah my agent commented what expensive gear i had and assured me and did back flips to get a signature on the bottom line.... thats called puffing when you try holding them to their word because thats when you get to see the fine print.

insurance was a rip off. never again.

Well, I'm still using the camera I busted in the elevator. Works fine, just a busted screen. Will take delivery on a Sony A 7R III and 24-105mm lens on Tuesday. About a $5000 expenditure. I'll put this on an all risk (scheduled) policy for about $70 a year in premium until it doesn't make sense to do so anymore. I'll adjust the amount of insurance every year or so as the value of the gear goes down. Plan to use with legacy glass, so probably won't be building a big kit around it.

An "agreed value" policy will let you decide what it's worth. Whether the cost of that policy is worth it is up to you.

I have basically that same outfit (my 500c body is a 1969). I don't consider them particularly high value or rare - not that I'd want to lose them. But given that there is a certain amount of fixed cost to any insurance (their administrative expense), I'd be surprised if any standalone insurance policy is financially justified.

You might be better off lowering the deductible on any homeowner's policy you have that would cover the camera.

And if the risk involved with your "wide wide world risks" is far greater than what the insurance company assumes, then insurance could be worth it. Though insurance companies have a great deal of experience in writing policies to reduce, or at least carefully bound, their risk.

]Though insurance companies have a great deal of experience in writing policies to reduce, or at least carefully bound, their risk.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps what they try to perfect is charging the proper premium for the risk they are assuming that allows them to make a reasonable profit after their expenses.

nsurit said:

]Though insurance companies have a great deal of experience in writing policies to reduce, or at least carefully bound, their risk.

Click to expand...

Perhaps what they try to perfect is charging the proper premium for the risk they are assuming that allows them to make a reasonable profit after their expenses.[/QUOTE]

We are saying much the same thing, though perhaps from a different perspective. Insurance companies have to take the expected value of a loss (probability x cost) then add both administrative cost and profit (less their investment income). By definition, in aggregate, people will pay more for insurance than they get.

But that's why it's called insurance and not investment. You insure because you can't afford a loss. In the case of the OP, with $1-2,000 worth of equipment, a standalone policy is unlikely to be worth it once that admin cost and profit is considered.

By definition, in aggregate, people will pay more for insurance than they get.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, however on an individual basis the way it works is the individual suffers a small loss (payment of premium) in exchange for the insurance company covering a larger loss in case of a claim.

You insure because you can't afford a loss. In the case of the OP, with $1-2,000 worth of equipment, a standalone policy is unlikely to be worth it once that admin cost and profit is considered.[/QUOTE]

The premium on $2,000 would run about $27 a year (although there maybe a minimum premium of $50-$75.) This conversation brings back memories of when I was starting my insurance business in the mid-80's and driving a POS Lincoln pimpmobile worth about $1,800. In addition to liability I carried both comp and collision insurance of it because if I had a loss I couldn't handle the loss .. . I'd be walking. Times sure changed . . . and I retired in 2010.

nsurit said:

This conversation brings back memories of when I was starting my insurance business in the mid-80's and driving a POS Lincoln pimpmobile worth about $1,800. In addition to liability I carried both comp and collision insurance of it because if I had a loss I couldn't handle the loss .. . I'd be walking. Times sure changed . . . and I retired in 2010.

Click to expand...

The reference to your car inevitably makes me think of the late night ads that used to run on incessantly on some of the Seattle TV stations:
I'm assuming you weren' t affiliated with Vern Fonk

so far, I've paid in insurance twice of what it would take to replace that equipment with used; not worth it!