[Cyrilix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sxr71 See if scalpers survive by standing outside selling one ticket. Sure people did sign up just to buy one and sell it later, but nobody stopped you from buying one either. There was plenty of time for anybody who wanted one to get one. They didn't sell out in minutes. So these people got in for whatever reason (to sell or listen). Where do you draw the line on what people should be allowed to do? They didn't kill anyone or cheat anyone to buy one. If however they bought 2 or 3 through dishonest means solely to sell then they are cheaters. They have no conscience and not concern for the community, but they are amongst us and we let them in. Such is life. Somebody could have bought one because they like to collect limited editions of anything even if they had no intent to listen to it. If they were offered $400 to sell it, would that be wrong if they sold it? Who's to blame the seller or the buyer? If 500 wasn't enough complain to Grado Labs. They made enough that it took quite a while to sell. Should they risk making 20,000 and risk wasting 80% of them instead?

No, they should just integrate it into their product lineup and keep on selling it. I don't see what you mean by making 20000 and risk wasting them. Obviously this doesn't happen with the rest of the Grados because otherwise, Grado as a company would be screwed, right?

 

[sub]

Gentlemen (& ladies),

Would self-regulation be beyond the members of this community? Perhaps this is what we need to do. Of course there will always be the non-conformist, being a free world (for most), may I suggest that in the future there be a ethical rules that we as members abide by. Namely;

1.) We will not sell limited ed. headphones/amps for more than twice the purchase price to members as a gesture of community spiritedness.

2.) Anyone caught doing so must be frowned upon, shake our heads in unison and make this noise: tsk, tsk, tsk, bad bubby, bad.

Thanks for the healthy debate. Remember price is not the issue, it is about the community spirit (if it can still be salvaged).

Its all good folks...all good.

 

[granodemostasa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellafella321 So what you're saying is when the time comes to sell your a900ltd's you'll sell them for 300$? You're saying that if you had a pair of hp-1000's you'd sell them for 600$? Talk is cheap. The only people who really have the right to complain are spaceconvoy, the person who sold grawk his hf-1's for 215$ that I missed by 1 minute, jahn(i think), and the few others who sold their hf-1's at cost.

i think Jahn traded the HF-1 for a 325i.

 

[Uncle Erik]

If anything, this demonstrates the demand there is for these headphones.

I read through the initial sale threads, and it sounded to me like the biggest problem was other Grado dealers getting bent out of shape because they did not get to sell these to customers. Todd got almost 500 guaranteed sales and they didn't. Nothing against Todd, and we owe him for this, but that's probably why this derailed.

The solution is simple. Make a limited quantity every year and distribute them to the entire dealer network. Limit sales to Head-Fi members and possibly tie the warranty to Head-Fi membership. Only offer them for a week. No dealer would complain if they got 50 pairs that were *guaranteed* to sell out. They would love that as well as increased traffic.

And if new members sign up to get them, isn't that sort of the point? More Head-Fi members and headphone enthusiasts are good things, right?

 

[yellafella321]

Quote:

Originally Posted by granodemostasa i think Jahn traded the HF-1 for a 325i.

someone resold his hf-1 and then donated 20$ or so to head-fi, much like a regular hf-1 sale, thought it was jahn, might very well be someone else.

 

[YukiBear]

What a bunch of whiners. People bought the HF-1s and they can do and sell them for whatever they want. Yeah it was definitely nice of John Grado to make a special edition for the community, but its not like he wasn't profiting too. Do you really think it costs Grado $200 to make a pair of HF-1s? He made them from spare parts he had lying around. Todd was making a profit too, or do you think he was eating the cost of every of HF-1 sold? He made money off the sale, he got a lot of traffic to his site, some of which he didn't get before, so he increased his exposure and got a lot of new customers who will go back to his store afterwards. Plus Head-fi got $25 from every HF-1 sold no matter what, so Head-fi profited too. Everyone who was involved in the sale profited. I missed out but hey that's life. If I want a pair I'll have to pay what a seller wants for it. Maybe while I'm at it I should kick down the doors of all the Orpheus owners and whine at them, or the AKG 340 owners, or the recent used A900LTD sales which were selling above retail, or beat up Comic Book Guy for selling Radioactive Man for $50 when it orignally cost a buck.

 

[skylinedo]

didn't read the rest of the posts.

this is the same concept as the ferrari F40. people or rather "investors" got ahold of them during their limited production run. and then went and sat on them before they sold them for soooooo much more.

ferrari wants the car to be owned and loved by car people who would actually drive them. not stick them somewhere in hopes of selling it for an outrageous price later. i'm sure grado feels the same way w/ the HF-1.

now comes in the enzo ... ferrari would only CONSIDER selling to previous ferrari customers. maybe Grado should do it like this

 

[spaceconvoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellafella321 So what you're saying is when the time comes to sell your a900ltd's you'll sell them for 300$? You're saying that if you had a pair of hp-1000's you'd sell them for 600$? Talk is cheap. The only people who really have the right to complain are spaceconvoy, the person who sold grawk his hf-1's for 215$ that I missed by 1 minute, jahn(i think), and the few others who sold their hf-1's at cost.

LOL - The irony of your post is that I was one of the ones who sold the A900LTD for $350 a week after they sold out

Part of the reason I sold the HF-1 at cost this time was that slightly dirty feeling I had after the A900LTD sale. It just felt like a step in the wrong direction away from headphones as 'fun' and towards headphones as 'commodity'.

That said, I actually agree much more with people like YukiBear above me - if you bought one legitimately, you have every right to ask for whatever price you want. My decision was a personal one, and I wouldn't want to force it on anyone else. In fact, the whole argument against making a profit strikes me as moralistic in the worst ways, and seems to assume a very narrow view of what a 'community' really is. Obligation is not what binds this forum together - a love of headphones is really all that's required.

 

[Zorander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylinedo now comes in the enzo ... ferrari would only CONSIDER selling to previous ferrari customers. maybe Grado should do it like this

How would selling a new batch of HF-1 (I wish) to previous buyers help the community? For all I care, a number of these 'previous customers' will start selling their newly acquired commodity at the market price with various excuses.

 

[kugino]

i don't see how this community is any worse just because people are selling headphones at a profit. i echo spaceconvoy's sentiment that if you're the legitimate owner of an hf-1 (or other item) you should sell it however you want...sell it at cost, at a profit, donate them, whatever. i payed a nice little premium for my sr200...surely way more than the original price...why should i expect the seller to sell them for less than he/she could legitimately get for them? just because we're both in the head-fi community?

i understand todd's displeasure with those who were selling them on ebay, but within the community, i don't see the problem.

no one's ripping anyone off...stop complaining.

 

[Filburt]

If you're really an advocate of a capitalist market system, it's pretty difficult to resolve a conflict between some deontological commitment against selling for profit with rather critical tenets of market economics that include this sort of dynamic. Most theories that try to resolve the conflict seem to end up invoking some concept of transferably static value that is tenuously consistent (if at all) with capitalist economics. I'm not saying the people who complain are wrong, but I think this point may be something important to keep in mind. I'm not an advocate of capitalist economics, so I imagine I'm not the one to ask if someone is interested in me defending the thesis that this sort of behaviour is fundamentally permissible, but I imagine there are plenty of people here who could take up the task, although I could try to come up with a reasonable defense of it if I had to, even if I didn't personally advocate it.

 

[rhythmdevils]

im reading this thread wondering if all you condeming the high prices of HF1's would sell yours (if you have a pair) for 200 or less.

somehow, i doubt it.

i would like to think that i would sell mine for 200. but when offered much more cash from someone eager to pay it, im not sure how easy it would be to say no.

money has more power than any other human force on this earth. sad but true.

 

[episiarch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils im reading this thread wondering if all you condeming the high prices of HF1's would sell yours (if you have a pair) for 200 or less. somehow, i doubt it.

I guarantee that members choosing to sell their HF-1's at a nonprofit price to a fellow enthusiast are not a purely theoretical concept.

 

[The_Duke_Of_Eli]

The HF-1s were supposed to be a (relatively) cheap way to get some woodies to the general head-fi community. By re-selling these for almost 100% more then retail (350 vs 200) then you're defeating the purpose of the hf-1s. I plan to pick a set up over the summer to someone with a reasonable asking price. I don't mind if there's a "small" (~30$) finders fee, but no more gouging.

 

[Zorander]

Good luck on that. I ultimately chose to go with the MS-2. Cheaper to obtain and, frankly, looks much better.