[WittyzTH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, I think they would pay. People seem plenty willing to pay now, what's the difference? The HF-2s were originally even compared to a PS-1. So I don't think most people would have had a problem rationalizing $850 in the least.

Have you owned or auditioned HF-2 and other Grados?


My friend, iamoneagain, ever had PS-1 and now own L3K said, HF-2 is nowhere near PS-1. He and I agree that it is only in the same league as RS-1 or probably a little above or below depending on the personal preference.

and HF-2 made for the community as a limited edition. Everyone should be able to get one at this ($429) low price. in $8xx range or above, possibly, the HF-3 may be there as the affordable limited Edition high-end Grado. but not the HF-2 since the HF-1 price was fairly cheap.

 

[WittyzTH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then why don't we have Jude impose price controls in the For Sale Forum? Maybe even assemble a Pricing Regulatory Board, for the enforcement of price controls in the For Sale Forum. I'm confident this would work well.

Then they will go to audiogon and eBey instead.

 

[woof37]

What Userlander is wanting can't be legislated. There's no way of knowing if someone bought something specifically to resell it. I see his point, though...this is one of things that you do your best to discourage but can't directly control or prevent. I see this type of discussion come up on watch boards with people getting a pre-order deal or previous-customer discount on a watch, then turning around and flipping it when the price goes up to normal.

All of us have mirrors and hopefully care about the quality of what stares back at us. So we should probably just leave it at that.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then why don't we have Jude impose price controls in the For Sale Forum? Maybe even assemble a Pricing Regulatory Board, for the enforcement of price controls in the For Sale Forum. I'm confident this would work well.

Your sarcasm aside, what I'm talking about is more about a kind of "honor system," since the idea of the headphones was supposed to be about the "community." Instead it turns out to be about what everything is usually about: me first, what can I get out of it, profit at all costs, etc.

Apparently some of you economic geniuses have also never heard of the concept of a non-profit corporation, which exists within a "capitalist" market-based structure, and yet typically offers goods and services for less than market value (or even free, pro-bono, etc.) -- FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. They don't need some kind of regulatory board to ensure they don't gouge anyone, it's just a function of the way they're set up and the way they're oriented within the community. Again, not everything always has to be about profit.

But I have never advocated for the kind of controls you joke about, I've only said that I think it's too bad that there is so little understanding or appreciation of the idea of community here, despite all the rhetoric we've heard about it all along.

 

[1117]

If Todd had sold these originally for $850, then the flip-around price would have been $1000.

There is no such thing as "Todd could have made more money on this." The flip-around price will always be more because they are limited.

Oh goodness, I give up.

EDIT: "Again, not everything always has to be about profit. " Um, you do know that NPO's DO make a profit, right? If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. What separates an NPO from the rest is that a Non-profit organization uses its profits for the benefit of the organization itself, not to benefit in a personal financial manner those who have invested in it. If the for sale forum was to be a TRUE NPO community, then all proceeds should go to the head-fi community, but that's not gonna happen, is it?

 

[kool bubba ice]

You know some people just bought a pair to sell them for a inflated price.. Which leaves out people that would have wanted one for personal enjoyment, not greed.

 

[1117]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif You know some people just bought a pair to sell them for a inflated price.. Which leaves out people that would have wanted one for personal enjoyment, not greed.

Hate to play devil's advocate here, but the hf-2 was talked about pre-CanJam. Everyone had some time to gather funds. Space in line was limited. Sad to say, but if you couldn't get money together, what was Todd supposed to do? He is running a business. First come first served.

Yes some who wanted one for personal enjoyment were left out, but that was going to happen anyway, since, again, it was a limited run.

I want to see if all the "community advocates" here will sell their HF2, when the time comes, for the original $425 in a future when people are willing to pay more for them. That's what I want to see. I intend to keep mine for a long time, but if someone says "I'll buy your pair for $800," I'm selling. Why? Well, why not?And if I sell them for $800, and sent $20 proceeds to the community, would I still be considered evil?

There are far bigger issues that plague the hi-fi community than resell value. As for the HF-2, limited run is the key to everything in this issue. That's just the way it is. Head-fi is an online forum that provides a service to people with shared interests in audio, not an utopia. Imperfect people make imperfect communities. That's the real world. The internet isn't free from that.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1117 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If Todd had sold these originally for $850, then the flip-around price would have been $1000. There is no such thing as "Todd could have made more money on this." The flip-around price will always be more because they are limited. Oh goodness, I give up. EDIT: "Again, not everything always has to be about profit. " Um, you do know that NPO's DO make a profit, right? If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves. What separates an NPO from the rest is that a Non-profit organization uses its profits for the benefit of the organization itself, not to benefit in a personal financial manner those who have invested in it. If the for sale forum was to be a TRUE NPO community, then all proceeds should go to the head-fi community, but that's not gonna happen, is it?

There's no such thing as Todd making more money on this? Sorry, but if you're going to be condescending with b!tchy little phrases like "goodness, I give up," then I guess I'll be b!tchy and ask if you even passed third grade math.

He charged $430 per headphone. If he charged $850 per headphone he would have made more money per headphone, wouldn't he have? How is making $420 more per headphone not making more money?

The point of the non-profit is to benefit the community. Whatever profit they make is usually funneled back into the community, not the shareholders. Kind of like what Todd did in the first place. They don't primarily exist just to rape the consumer by charging as much as possible for goods and services. Their reason for being is not to make a profit. Any idiot can see that's the larger point. The point is about what a community is, not what capitalism is or what supply and demand is. I know what capitalism and supply and demand are. That's not the point. The point is that so many of you don't seem to know what community is. Like you have just amply demonstrated here again.

Sheesh, I give up.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1117 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I want to see if all the "community advocates" here will sell their HF2, when the time comes, for the original $425 in a future when people are willing to pay more for them. That's what I want to see.

At least one person already did that. He said he felt really good about it, too.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's no such thing as Todd making more money on this? Sorry, but if you're going to be condescending with b!tchy little phrases like "goodness, I give up," then I guess I'll be b!tchy and ask if you even passed third grade math. He charged $430 per headphone. If he charged $850 per headphone he would have made more money per headphone, wouldn't he have? How is making $420 more per headphone not making more money? The point of the non-profit is to benefit the community. Whatever profit they make is usually funneled back into the community, not the shareholders. Kind of like what Todd did in the first place. They don't primarily exist just to rape the consumer by charging as much as possible for goods and services. Their reason for being is not to make a profit. Any idiot can see that's the larger point. The point is about what a community is, not what capitalism is or what supply and demand is. I know what capitalism and supply and demand are. That's not the point. The point is that so many of you don't seem to know what community is. Like you have just amply demonstrated here again. Sheesh, I give up.

Don't give up. Some may get it.
Although there are a lot of people thinking that the laws of economics are (and should be) the laws of society, there are still also a lot of people (and I believe the amount is growing) that know better.

 

[1117]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's no such thing as Todd making more money on this? Sorry, but if you're going to be condescending with b!tchy little phrases like "goodness, I give up," then I guess I'll be b!tchy and ask if you even passed third grade math. He charged $430 per headphone. If he charged $850 per headphone he would have made more money per headphone, wouldn't he have? How is making $420 more per headphone not making more money?

You missed the context of my statement. I said:
"There is no such thing as Todd could have made more money on this. The flip-around price will always be more because they are limited."

Perhaps it was poorly worded, but what I meant was that regardless of what price Todd set for the market, his price would never match the resale price. As for the "goodness, I give up phrase" I sincerely apologize. However, do take note that I never personally attacked anyone, and thus was surprised at your remark.

Now, I understand what all of you mean by sense of community, but that is something that only looks good on paper but fails in practice as far as sales go. I am not disagreeing with the idea of a sense of community, just stating that what is being hoped for just cannot happen. It is intrinsic with limited editions anything.

As far as this goes:
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif At least one person already did that. He said he felt really good about it, too.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the seller initiated the sale in that case. In the case in question, the buyer initiated it with a willingness to pay more for them. If the buyer says "Name your price" and seller says "oh no, I will charge you original market price", would that be a good or bad thing? From a financial perspective, it'd be stupid to want less for an item clearly valued for more, from a social perspective, or community, then it would be great. Too many factors play into reasons for selling: some do it to upgrade, some to profit, some give stuff away for free, etc.

I understand why those who flip items are looked at in disdain, but it is difficult to ascertain who bought it for just that purpose. How much time does one have to hang unto the HF2's before one is considered a flipper? A week? A month? A year? What if someone bought them with a genuine reason to keep them, but runs into financial trouble, and could use the extra funds fetched on the market now? Is the community to tell him "you are a bad person" for just trying to get out of debt by selling the HF2 at a higher price that others are willing to pay for? There's too many factors at play.

Now (and here I will take a serious stand and be willing to take all that comes back to me because of it): for all those advocating sense of community, have you truly given back to this community? If so, how? I am not going to say I am an example of someone who has. To me, the true contributors are those who support the site financially, those who educate us with factual knowledge (and not all pomp and circumstance that attempts to pass itself as such), those who push the hifi world with their technical ingenuity and innovation, those who provide services (such as DIY) to the community.

What have I done? Posted an opinion or two on some headphones? Lent out gear once or twice? Am I, then, a contributor? All I do is read and educate myself on what gear is out there so that I can achieve the sound I want. What am I then? I'm a damn leech...

 

[user18]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif The point of the non-profit is to benefit the community. Whatever profit they make is usually funneled back into the community, not the shareholders. Kind of like what Todd did in the first place. They don't primarily exist just to rape the consumer by charging as much as possible for goods and services. Their reason for being is not to make a profit. Any idiot can see that's the larger point.

Except that neither TTVJ nor HF are non-profits, they are businesses. Thus far, you're arguments are based on conjectures. The owner met all the requirements for purchase and sale of the HF-2. Anything that happens in-between is nobody's business. If you don't like it, then go about changing the rules.

 

[pcf]

I don't have a strong opinion about people selling their HF-2 for more money. It is going to happen sooner or later anyway. I do feel uncomfortable about what the seller said before the sale:

" It's more about selling something like the HF-2 to someone who is in good standings with the community. Someone who doesn't purchase stuff off the FS forums to sell it on E-Bay for marked up prices. "

If I read it correctly, somehow he thinks it's not okay to make money from selling the phones on ebay but okay to sell them to other members for " marked up prices".

 

[woof37]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcf /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't have a strong opinion about people selling their HF-2 for more money. It is going to happen sooner or later anyway. I do feel uncomfortable about what the seller said before the sale: " It's more about selling something like the HF-2 to someone who is in good standings with the community. Someone who doesn't purchase stuff off the FS forums to sell it on E-Bay for marked up prices. " If I read it correctly, somehow he thinks it's not okay to make money from selling the phones on ebay but okay to sell them to other members for " marked up prices".

Hmmm. I didn't realize he stated that. That changes things a bit, in my opinion.

 

[Uncle Erik]

The difference between individuals and non-profit corporations is that there are tax benefits and other incentives to behave as a non-profit. If I could realize a serious tax benefit by reselling my HF-2 for $429, then maybe I would. But asking people to behave as a non-profit isn't going to work without an incentive.

Is it unethical to list the HF-2 on eBay with no reserve and a starting bid of $1? If it only got one bid and sold for $1, would that "help the community?" How about if the auction ended at $429? $430? How about $700? Would an ending price of $700 be less ethical than an ending price of $430? How so?

Suppose I die in a car accident tonight. My possessions would then go to my heirs. None of my heirs are members of Head-Fi. Does the ethical obligation of "fair" pricing somehow transfer to them? If they sold the HF-2 for $700, would that be OK? Why or why not?

To go a step further, what if the person who bought the HF-2 for $700 from my estate wanted to sell them. Would it be OK for that person to ask for $700, or would he have an ethical obligation to sell them for $429?

Oh, and suppose inflation really takes off. Two years from now, the value of $429 in 2009 dollars will be closer to $500. Considering inflation, would it be ethical to sell the HF-2 for $500, or should you have to take that as a loss? Likewise, if depreciation sets in, would it be ethical to sell at $429, even if the original selling price nets you a profit?

Look, this discussion is mostly righteous onanism. There are a million more scenarios where the whole "community" thing doesn't play. There is no way to govern or control sales of something. Whining about what people should and should not do with their property is a waste of time.

Let the market decide. If you missed out on the sale, had a seizure over the typo or thought the price was unfair, well, better luck next time. But if there is a HF-3, we're going to go through the same old crap about resale, price and a cosmetic issue - real or imagined.