Somebody mentioned Hotgrooves has them for under $10, last one there is a rotten egg.
On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 02:22PM, Thomas D. Cox, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: "J. T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>who cares. i'll get a dozen other records that are equally good. >i'm a music >>lover not a collector..in most cases.. > >so you dont like the record because its not good? i dont >understand. if you were actually a music lover, i think youd be >happy to finally get your hands on a good record that otherwise >you wouldnt pay crazy loot for. > >>well we'll see how well the stores can actually sell it. none of >the people >>i was with at recordtime looked twice at it. too much other good >chit to buy >>for 1/3 the price > >stores arent smoking crack for the most part. they dont order >things they think they wont be able to sell. > >>fart > >excellent argument. > >>thats a completely false assertion. thats what record collecting >is all >>about. my dad's been selling rare records for 40 years....and >i've been >>selling stuff on ebay for quite awhile. music lovers dont care >about >>pressings etc, but this chit isnt priced for music lovers. but it >will be >>soon enough...in 20 years it will be very easy to remember which >pressing is >>which because the original will cost a fortune and the repress >will be >>affordable...as it should be now. > >the repress is exactly identical to the original. how will they >determine which it is? carbon dating a sample from the vinyl? > >>but the artist roster has plenty of draw. it's really not so >different. just >>sought after artists instead of sought after tracks.. > >this is my point though. it would be bad if big name artists just >started selling their records for more because they are who they >are. putting a premium price on an established anthem is >altogether different. > >>a repress is not rare and does not deserve that price, the end. >you dont >>press a rare record, it becomes rare over time. the rarity of the >original >>record is established. the inflated cost of a repress is just >trying to >>quickly take advantage of the demand for the original. it's a >cheap trick. >>guarantee you the repress will be worth less than current >wholesale price in >>5 years. > >ill bet you a ton of money on that. look at "shades of jae" by >moodymann. that record has been repressed, even as recently as 5 >years ago. it still goes for pretty good money on ebay, no matter >which version youre bidding on. it might not go for as much as >other non-repressed KDJs but its still worth way more than what >anyopne paid for the represses. > >>you're missing the point entirely. just because you can price >something high >>and still sell it ok doesnt mean you are justified in doing so >(by anything >>other than overzealous capitalism). clone could have priced their >glass >>domain rerelease similarily, but didnt. because they are not >trying to >>overcapitalize. your willingness to pay exorbitant prices does >not excuse >>the jacked up pricetag...it makes you a sucker... > >im the sucker because i have a record i want? how does that make >sense? IMO youre a sucker if you pass up a chance to buy a great >record because of a $10 price increase. dont go out to eat one >night. dont buy a couple drinks next time youre at the club >watching deejays spin. $10 isnt $100, there are so many ways that >money can be spent that is much more worthless than getting a >great record. ill play this 12" way more than 17 times in my life. >even at $1 per play it would be well worth it. > >>you got the collector itch in you, or a thick wallet -- i hope a >thick >>wallet so you're still buying other stuff > >i buy plenty of other stuff. i wouldnt call my wallet thick >though, i just buy the things i want. just like i wouldnt pay >anything for a filler record, ill pay money for a great record. > >>cool, you're the one they're selling to then.. > >and every single other person who didnt have one and just picked >one up for a reasonable non-ebay price. brand new, in fact. > >>really? i sure wouldnt. they're not all great, some sound very >dated now. > >good mentality. music cant stay good if it sounds dated? thats >especially funny coming from you, considering the type of music >you like to make. > >>but following this new pricing strategy down the line, why not >just repress >>100 copies of the retroactive stuff and sell them for $100 each. >make $10k >>off 100 records, yeahhhh! can you still not see why that sucks? >from a music >>lover's pov, it sucks.... > >$100 does suck, youre right. $17 OTOH doesnt at all. > >>for the collectors, for the stores it's great...i >>pretty much make my living selling stuff to compulsive >collectors, but i am >>not about to become one, i cant afford it... > >i know, that extra $10 on one record might kill you. youll be >eating ramen for years. please. im a student who barely works, and >i spend my record money very wisely. which is exactly why i bought >this record, since ill never in my life see it any cheaper. > >tom > >________________________________________________________________ >andythepooh.com > > > > > >
