Hi Again, Darren...
Gotta jump in for a minute before taking off....
Two very different thoughts were thrown together and the result is a
bit confusing.
I was not suggesting to keep prices high. Oh my golly, no. I am only
attempting to suggest that a longer view should be taken and that it
would be nice if an effort were made to reduce the number of pricing
anomalies. By the way, most wealthy collectors I know do not buy
common specimens. The involvement of such collectors simply provides
increased stability by driving overall demand which enhances the value
of all of our collections---not a bad thing. It's going to be a long,
long time before any of us have to worry about an inability to be able
to snag cheap meteorites.
All best and wishing everyone a nice Sunday!
Darryl
On Dec 7, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Darren Garrison wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:57:16 -0500, you wrote:
This is a serious business...
One last point on this-- of course a "business" will legitamately
want to make
as much money for product or service X as they can for it-- but it
is entirely a
different matter to expect customers of said business to want the
business to
charge more, which is what Darryl said and I was replying to--
quote:
"Everything else being the same, no witnessed fall should ever sell
for
a couple of bucks a gram, and we should all strive to make certain
this doesn't occur."
Meaning-- we should try to keep the prices of these high, even if
they could
sell for less. With the implication that this is to attract "serious
collectors", which seems to mean rich people collecting for future
profits.
Now, while (to illustrate with some other buyable product) it is
well and good
for Best Buy to want $1000 for a flat-screen TV if they can get it.
But it
isn't reasonable to expect the customer to want Best Buy to charge
$1000 for
that flat-screen when it COULD sell for $100. If what it costs to
sell it at a
profit is $1000, then fine. But if it could be sold for $100, why
on Earth
would the customer be expected to get behind selling it for $1000
just because
$100 is "too cheap"? My position as a consumer is to attempt to pay
the lowest
reasonable cost for any item.
I'd think that the main expense for hunters isn't the travel costs,
but the cost
of buying the meteorites from the land owner, who always expect it
to be a "get
rich quick" situation. If the land owners expect (and get) a price
that
requires hunters to resell it at around $50 a gram, then that's what
the hunters
will have to charge. But if the land owners didn't expect as much
money, then
the resellers wouldn't have to charge as much money. It is a
feedback loop.
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
