Read the forum code of contact
By: - 6th June 2005 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Holy smokes !
nice item, but again exorbitant prices on ebay.de...! Where is this leading when "sudek13" only makes 3rd place nowadays....?
this really is e(vil)bay
Martin
By: - 6th June 2005 at 17:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's that in real money, £600 ?????
By: - 6th June 2005 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mike J
I fully agree - I didn't mean to put the blame on ebay itself for the development of prices - this clearly is caused by the insanity of some bidders with (obviously) more available funds than brains -
but I do regard a place like ebay as a construct that can produce evil behaviour in people while fighting over an item - it's beyond rational boundaries - it sometimes even feels like war. At such price-levels as seen it the actual example, it can no longer be for collecting things only - it is to be better than everyone else, at no matter what price. That's evil.
And it's very tiresome for collectors and historians (like me) to see important items go beyoned any reasonable price-level, and by that also creating evil thoughts......
I hope my "Swinglish" (Swiss-English) makes any sense now.
Martin
By: - 6th June 2005 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't know you were a 'swinger' Martin! :eek: :eek: :eek:
:D @ Mike J
By: - 6th June 2005 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But as I said, this is no different from bidding for a Spitfire in an auction house (such as the famous MH434 auction in 1983), or a camel auction in Cairo in 1762 - if you get 2 bidders who want the item, the price will go up accordingly, theoretically with no upper limit, until one bidder is prepared to back down. At least the eBay system puts a time limit on auctions, if it was the same system as in auction houses, where bids increase until there is only one bidder left, then we might see some REALLY silly prices!
Good summary MJ.
By: - 6th June 2005 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never throw anything.
Unfortunately for married men, it is not always possible
By: - 7th June 2005 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mike
Thanks for that - it took me a long time to knock out that pic - photoshop is a great thing - Now for some nice shots of the Hungarian 6 engined Superbomber captured by the Russians and sent to a secret Siberian factory - so secret they forgot where it is to this day..................700 very easy quid - will get me to Leg Ends and buy us a nice few beers
Regards
john P
By: - 7th June 2005 at 11:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MikeThanks for that - it took me a long time to knock out that pic - photoshop is a great thing - Now for some nice shots of the Hungarian 6 engined Superbomber captured by the Russians and sent to a secret Siberian factory - so secret they forgot where it is to this day..................700 very easy quid - will get me to Leg Ends and buy us a nice few beers
Regards
john P
Well John,
The over 10.000 pounds paid last year for a reproduction Lancaster instrument panel would get you much more than that. :D
Cheers
Cees
By: - 7th June 2005 at 12:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I fully agree - I didn't mean to put the blame on ebay itself for the development of prices - this clearly is caused by the insanity of some bidders with (obviously) more available funds than brains -Martin, try not to insult people just because you don't understand their reasons. 'Insanity' is a dangerous word: I have met people who considered it insane to pay 20 pounds for a ticket to an airshow.
but I do regard a place like ebay as a construct that can produce evil behaviour in people while fighting over an item - it's beyond rational boundaries - it sometimes even feels like war. At such price-levels as seen it the actual example, it can no longer be for collecting things only - it is to be better than everyone else, at no matter what price. That's evil.Places like ebay make people (non-aviation-history-enthusiasts) realise that old photographs are worth something. Even if you personally cannot afford to buy them, at least you become aware of their existence, while ten years ago or so they might well have landed in a dustbin, lost forever, without any historian (like you) realising this.
And someone (unlike you) who pays hundreds of quids for a single photo is certainly going to take good care of it, so in the end ebay helps preserve aviation history, even if it is not in your collection.
By: - 28th June 2005 at 15:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As a post-script to this thread, Poland's two leading aviation magazines have published the photo in their June issues, accompanied by expert comments from the country's most renowned aviation historians. In fact both magazines considered it important enouight to advertise the photo on the cover. The two titles are normally strong competitors (think of Flypast vs. FWAEOF). In this case they both had editorials explaining that they united their efforts with other enthusiasts to make sure the photo is made available to general public in Poland. Now all collectors and historians can have a decent quality copy of the photo simply by spending a couple of quid on a copy of either magazine.
By: - 28th June 2005 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
my two €cents:
picture collecting has become an increasing business lately, but 1.010 €uros for a print is nonsense.. I theorically would have spent the same amount for a negative, but not for a print.. I've spent WAY more for rare Luftwaffe watches, but under a mere economical point of view there's a market for them, while a print... chapeau to the seller though, who surely at first made money with the magazines to publish it, and then sold it on ebay ;)
Alex
By: - 29th June 2005 at 14:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
picture collecting has become an increasing business lately, but 1.010 €uros for a print is nonsense.. I theorically would have spent the same amount for a negative, but not for a print..Why is it nonsense with a print but not with a negative?
I've spent WAY more for rare Luftwaffe watches, but under a mere economical point of view there's a market for them, while a print...ebay proves there certainly is a market for photos, it's just that you prefer watches. Many people (including myself) will tell you that spending thousands of euros on Luftwaffe watches is nonsense.
chapeau to the seller though, who surely at first made money with the magazines to publish it, and then sold it on ebayWhy do you accuse a decent guy of a dirty trick? The magazines (both of them) used the print that they together got on ebay.
By: - 29th June 2005 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why is it nonsense with a print but not with a negative?
ebay proves there certainly is a market for photos, it's just that you prefer watches. Many people (including myself) will tell you that spending thousands of euros on Luftwaffe watches is nonsense.
Why do you accuse a decent guy of a dirty trick? The magazines (both of them) used the print that they together got on ebay.
Uhm... if u have a print it's just "a print". Defining it the only known picture of the plane is pure nonsense, since u can print many copies out of a negative.. Under a commercial point of view u own a picture when u own the negative, otherwise u own a print (ok, a 1943 print but that's it..), so there might be hundreds of copies around...
I would understand spending some cash for a nice print of the era, but 1.010 € for a rectangle of paper... pure feticism...
If u think that spending thousands of €uros for a watch is nonsense I cant help it.. a piece of machinery that runs great and keeps time like a digital watch after 60+ years is a jewel, period. U can spend 1.000 € to get a nice Omega of the '40s or a print of a "what is it?" plane, it's up to your tastes and sense of business ;)
U mean that both the magazines aquired the picture from the guy on ebay and then published it? didnt know about that, but this doesnt change the fact that u can find better ways of spending 1.000 €...
Alex
By: - 29th June 2005 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
as per rummy. The known known is that the photo print is there.. the unknown known is that the negative must have been there at some point time. The known unknown is that the negative is not for sale. the unknown known is if the negative is still in existence or not, it might have been lost or burnt up - we simply dont know its unknown fate.. So as per the known known, there is only one print that anyone ever seen.. and no one even knows if the negative has survived or not... so maynot be a bad deal after all...
did i get my knowns and unknowns right :D
By: - 29th June 2005 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what I know is that I dont know if this print is worth 1.010 €uros.. any serious pic collector out there who wants to express his opinion about it?
Alex
By: - 29th June 2005 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under a commercial point of view u own a picture when u own the negativeI think we've had that kind of discussion before. In short, "under a commercial point of view you own a picture" when you own the copyright for that picture which is not necessarily equal to owning the negative.
what I know is that I dont know if this print is worth 1.010 €uros..If there are people willing to pay a certain amount of money for something, then it is certainly worth that amount of money for them.
any serious pic collector out there who wants to express his opinion about it?Define "serious".
I presume whoever spends 1000 euros for a pic is not "serious" in your opinion, right?
By: - 29th June 2005 at 19:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i guess u r taking it too personally mate ;)
My first job was in a communications agency, I worked as photographer too and when we sold the pics we just sold the negatives, not the prints.. prints have no commercial value, apart for the cost of developing and the paper. We'd better talk about buying collectibles here, not buying pics..
If u want to pay 2.000 € for a pin it's up to u, but this doesnt necessarily mean that it's the value of the object.
My personal opinion is that a picture collector who spends 1000 € is not serious, but crazy... The satisfaction of a collector comes from making good deals too, not by spending ridiculous amounts of money for an item (and we're talking about a darn piece of paper here..)..
I probably dont accept it because for me it's far from any human comprehension, but we're all different...
Alex
By: - 29th June 2005 at 19:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks like that it was a conglomerate that bought the photo - maybe the two magazines and a few more serious collectors who shlled out 50-100 Europs to get that photo.. good deal, in the end all the collectors and the mags would have shlled out a token amount (in the case of mags, probably what they would have paid a contributor anyway) and they get thier hands on a very rare photo. The seller is a happy man, I agree, but if this was a cartel of buyers, then no one 'loses' out - and everyone can get a digital copy..
The value of it I think is in knowing no one ever seen one of those before. I am sure that much more have been paid to the papparazi for photos of celebraties doing crazy things.. so why not for that rare and only existing photo of a prototype that no one has? (yet).
By: - 30th June 2005 at 00:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear!
Fact: The financial value of something is what a buyer will pay that a seller can get. Arguing about it being serious or sensible is amusing, but irrelivent. That picture was worth, on the day of the auction, what was paid for it. Today? Whatever.
Fact: The historical value depends on the historic content and provenance of the object.
This is why a museum will collect certain items and the cost is an incidental, and an auction house will sell things to which the cost is the main motivator, and it's provenance and authenticity is as irrelevant as they can get away with. 'Value' is not the same thing to all people and organisations. It's the most common mistake to equate a financial value to something that is historically 'priceless'.
And Jagan's point regarding negatives is excellent.
By: - 30th June 2005 at 04:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Jagan's discourse and knowledge of known unknowns was priceless; a real collectable gem of wit. :D I hope he doesn't go on to logically prove white is black, only to be run over crossing the zebra crossing.
I didn't pay Eu 1000+ but got to see the photo - I'm happy; the magazines and collectors in Poland collectively paid Eu 1000+ and got hold of the photo - they're happy; the original owner got Eu 1000+ minus the commission fees - he/she/they're happy; eBay got the commission for the sale - they're happy....everyone's happy let's leave it at that.
Can't try to understand another person's passion or desire to own something that they feel is valuable; it's too intensely personal to translate to another's thoughts.
...geoff
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 6th June 2005 at 15:11
Don't throw those old photographs away.
This single snap of a rare Polish prototype made in excess of 1000 Euros on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15504&item=6182418998&rd=1
It is believed to be the only known photo of the second prototype of the PZL
P.50 fighter, captured by the Germans in Warsaw in September 1939.
Unfortunately more than one person realised that.
Mark