[rodbac]

Quote:

If it is wrong to buy something to sell it later, then our whole stock market system is immoral!

Profiteering isn't merely reselling something you bought and turning a profit.

Profiteering involves taking advantage of a situation, and again, I'm not sure whether this really counts or not.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1son I currently own and don't plan on selling my HF-1's, but I hate to think that if I decide to sell them for their current market value that I would get shunned off by a significant amount of people on this board. Most things purchased in this world go down in value, it's a rarity when something goes up. The headphones in question are extremely nice and people have decided they are worth more than their original purchase price. So what? I'm also just not sure how profitting $200-$400 is profiteering. Maybe if someone managed to buy ten of them and started selling them once the price went way up... but all you could buy is one. It shouldn't bother anyone that the price has significantly gone up, no one seems to care when people spend more than the MSRP for the much older HP series.

If you bought one and only one, then you shouldn't have to fear if for whatever reason you want to sell them.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nierika Thankfully, I'm occupied with my own life and don't waste time worrying about what headphones people are selling and speculating about why they are selling them.

We have lives too, so don't be so insulting. If no one really cared about this community, or at least took stock in it seriously at times, we wouldn't be the head-fi we are now.

Quote:

Does anyone else get tired of the large amount of people on the Internet who have nothing better to do than bitch and moan about every little thing?

I don't really consider this thread to be filled with bitchers and moaners, we're just expressing our concerns, and conversing civilly. The whole thing may be a minor deal but, oh well. Not everything people talk about online or offline is super-important or relevant.

EDIT: That said, I don't really wanna be in this thread anymore, as I already know how it's gonna end (or not end, as the case maybe). And uh . . . pretzels

 

[episiarch]

Here's how I look at it (not that you asked, I know).

John Grado and Todd very generously gave us the chance to buy something whose value substantially exceeded the price we paid for it. The owners received value paid for, plus a surplus of value over and above that. That surplus amounted to a gift from them to us, for the purpose of providing support to Head-Fi.

When reselling, you have to ask yourself whether you want to pass along that surplus - by selling based on 'list' price - or whether you are going to keep it for yourself - by selling at 'market' price. A related question is, "when I share in a gift offered to the community, do I fully own my share in that gift, or do I owe it back to the community when my use of it is over?"

I think this is a personal decision in which people will weigh their notions of ownership, their notions of obligation, their notions of how the world works, and to some extent their notions of how generous they can afford to be (though this last is a bit of a ruse since we are talking about a luxury item that nobody really needs).

Personally I would rather everybody took the "pass along the surplus benefit to others in the community" route. But we know not everyone did or will. It's the breaks, it's to be expected, and I doubt that it came as a surprise to the HF-1 organizers.

 

[smeggy]

Profiteering can only occur if someone is willing to pay the price. If nobody bites then a high price is meaningless. As long as people agree to pay ridiculous prices for something, well that's just the way of the market. People vote with their dolars. Is the HF1 worth $300-600? not to me but maybe for some. They are a budget 'phone and for that much cash you can get something better. Is the fact that they are a limited edition a good reason to pay a whopping premium? Again, not to me, not at that kind of price.

It's all a matter of personal priorities and desires, and people exploiting others desires for profit is human nature.

 

[Mercuttio]

You know, I'm a little offended by people who insinuate that all those with low post counts were lying in wait to snag these headphones and sell them on the black headphone market (ebay, I guess). It seems (and I may be wrong) like a very nasty way of saying "I didn't get one, but I damn well deserved it." We've got a LOT of lurkers here, as every board does. Just because they don't post every day and yell at Jahn for having such a rediculous post count doesn't mean they're not community members, you know? They still visit here and I'll bet they refer their friends to Head-Fi once in a while... expanding the base.

So, let me tell you, I'm as big a Grado fan as anyone, and I don't have an HF-1. I was going to try the first day they were up (the day of the crash) but decided I really didn't need a pair on the second go around. I'm going to be realistic about it here, and about the headphone itself. It's a good phone. Really is, quite comparable to the MS2i and I assume the 325i. It's worth $300 at maximum, and that's it. Anyone who pays more just to buy a slice of Head-Fi is missing the point of this place. If you really want to buy a slice of Head-Fi, get your name on that contributor board!

 

[sub]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sxr71 As an Economist, you must have known that it was inevitable that this would happen. It was a limited edition product, there was no other way this could have ended short of them requiring a $500 bond forfeited in case of unapproved sale of the headphones. Or other draconian measure.

Golly, I am also incompetent as ****** to not foresee this, on top of missing out on the HF-1. Let's not be silly here pal.

In a perfect world, the sellers would have given $50 to Headfi as a token of their appreciation, considering neither tax or cost of production was borne by them and maybe $50 for their trouble. Blatantly jacking the price up, the next day to profit from members (as the community), not the ebay crowd mind you (as the free market) is just shameless imho. If they titled their ads to:SHAMELESS IC/FS: GRADO HF1, I would not have an issue with it. Parading it as community service?

Market dictating price is efficient and I am all for it, trust me.

 

[jjcha]

Sigh, the debate goes on.

I will say this. I wish there were a lot more speculators on the market back last October. If there were hundreds of them, there would be hundreds more HF-1 on the market.

Oh well. But there weren't.

Best,

-Jason

 

[allenf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercuttio You know, I'm a little offended by people who insinuate that all those with low post counts were lying in wait to snag these headphones and sell them on the black headphone market (ebay, I guess). It seems (and I may be wrong) like a very nasty way of saying "I didn't get one, but I damn well deserved it." We've got a LOT of lurkers here, as every board does. Just because they don't post every day and yell at Jahn for having such a rediculous post count doesn't mean they're not community members, you know? They still visit here and I'll bet they refer their friends to Head-Fi once in a while... expanding the base.

That's true, but I did notice at least one "My HF-1s have arrived w00t!" by poster X, post count 4 type messages at the time of the original shipments.
And if you have long-time member poster Y, post count 1500 who happened to be strapped for cash at the crucial moment...one can understand the frustration.

 

[The_Duke_Of_Eli]

Almost everyone who said "let it go" either:

1) Already has a set
2) Didn't want a set (don't like Grado sound perhaps)
3) Already made a profit on an HF-1
4) Has something better (RS-1/RS-2/HP1/....)

I have a solution. Do what I'm doing. DON'T BUY OVERPRICED HF-1s. If people keep buying these cans for alot of money, then it makes other sellers want the same amount of cash so that's the "market value". Price is directly related to demand. High demand; high price. But if demand fell and these people ("these people" shouldn't be taken derogatively) wanted to upgrade to something better but there wasn't any interest for 350$ US then the prices would go down. STOP BUYING OVERPRICED HF-1s. I'm tired to telling sellers to stop gouging, so now I'm telling the interested buyers that if we all stop paying so much for HF-1s the price will go down. Cheers and if you have a problem or want to flame me I cleared my pm box.

-The Duke

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by episiarch Here's how I look at it (not that you asked, I know). John Grado and Todd very generously gave us the chance to buy something whose value substantially exceeded the price we paid for it. The owners received value paid for, plus a surplus of value over and above that. That surplus amounted to a gift from them to us, for the purpose of providing support to Head-Fi. When reselling, you have to ask yourself whether you want to pass along that surplus - by selling based on 'list' price - or whether you are going to keep it for yourself - by selling at 'market' price. A related question is, "when I share in a gift offered to the community, do I fully own my share in that gift, or do I owe it back to the community when my use of it is over?" I think this is a personal decision in which people will weigh their notions of ownership, their notions of obligation, their notions of how the world works, and to some extent their notions of how generous they can afford to be (though this last is a bit of a ruse since we are talking about a luxury item that nobody really needs). Personally I would rather everybody took the "pass along the surplus benefit to others in the community" route. But we know not everyone did or will. It's the breaks, it's to be expected, and I doubt that it came as a surprise to the HF-1 organizers.

Good point. I guess that really depends on a person's conscience.

In practice I guess it depends more on a person's financial ability at the time. As a poor student, I might just capture the surplus, when I start working I might find it a lot easier to do what I'd like to do and offer them up for what I paid.

Ultimately, they say that a person is best judged by their actions in times of difficulty.

 

[Enverxis]

There are better headphones for the money.

 

[The_Duke_Of_Eli]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enverxis There are better headphones for the money.

For 350$ sure. Re-cabled 650s come to mind. AKG701s (on the forums), K340s. That's why I can't beleive people are buying them for so much money. They sound good, but the K701 and K340 are pretty good in comparison, especially when properly amped.

 

[sxr71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sub Golly, I am also incompetent as ****** to not foresee this, on top of missing out on the HF-1. Let's not be silly here pal. In a perfect world, the sellers would have given $50 to Headfi as a token of their appreciation, considering neither tax or cost of production was borne by them and maybe $50 for their trouble. Blatantly jacking the price up, the next day to profit from members (as the community), not the ebay crowd mind you (as the free market) is just shameless imho. If they titled their ads to:SHAMELESS IC/FS: GRADO HF1, I would not have an issue with it. Parading it as community service? Market dictating price is efficient and I am all for it, trust me.

Then why complain? As an economist you could forsee this happening. You see these things happening all the time. Here people found the value of being fair to Todd, Grado Labs and our community to be less than the value of the extra cash they would get from the sale of these phones. People make these decisions and hence you and I both understand why we need rules in a market economy. The rules try to insure fairness. However, sometimes the cost of enforcing the ideal set of rules outweighs the value of the level of fairness we seek. I don't need to lecture you on economics as I'm sure you are more than qualified on this subject, from an economist to another economist.

A better result may have come from stricter qualifications to buy. Perhaps a minumum membership length or post count. That could have been done cheaply.

In a perfect world, perhaps what you mentioned could have enforced. However, you know how expensive it would have been to enforce it.

Again, I guess this is just a learning experience for all to learn from.

 

[coolshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by episiarch Here's how I look at it (not that you asked, I know). John Grado and Todd very generously gave us the chance to buy something whose value substantially exceeded the price we paid for it. The owners received value paid for, plus a surplus of value over and above that. That surplus amounted to a gift from them to us, for the purpose of providing support to Head-Fi. When reselling, you have to ask yourself whether you want to pass along that surplus - by selling based on 'list' price - or whether you are going to keep it for yourself - by selling at 'market' price. A related question is, "when I share in a gift offered to the community, do I fully own my share in that gift, or do I owe it back to the community when my use of it is over?" I think this is a personal decision in which people will weigh their notions of ownership, their notions of obligation, their notions of how the world works, and to some extent their notions of how generous they can afford to be (though this last is a bit of a ruse since we are talking about a luxury item that nobody really needs). Personally I would rather everybody took the "pass along the surplus benefit to others in the community" route. But we know not everyone did or will. It's the breaks, it's to be expected, and I doubt that it came as a surprise to the HF-1 organizers.

QFT, i dont mind ppl keeping some of that value, but to charge around a 100% gain for limited edition meant as a 'community gift' so to speak kinda rubs me the wrong way.