On Jun 14, 7:08 am, islaysteve <alkire...@verizon.net> wrote: > In view of the other thread about the nice Rambo for sale on CList, I > thought I'd start a general discussion of used Riv prices. Just > because it's kind of interesting. Someone on the other thread implied > that it's not reasonable to compare the asking price of a used frame > to the price of a new frame, esp. if it's a different model. I > disagree. Long ago I had a job processing claims. The principles > apply, I argue. To use my own example, you can't buy a new Bleriot. > If you want a new Riv frame that's close to a Bleriot in geometry and > function, you buy a Sam. Back when they were sold, Bleriots cost $750 > (such a deal!). Today new Sams cost $1100 (?) or $1500, and that is a > whole other discussion in itself. In my size (small), they cost > $1500. So when I paid more than the original cost for my pristine > Bleriot frame/fork, was I foolish? I don't think so. Riv frames in > my size on the used market are not available all that often. So the > other part of this equation is depreciation: the word that insurance > companies love and claimants hate. I think you have to agree that > most things, Riv frames included, depreciate. If you'd rather have a > new frame out of the box from Walnut Creek than a used frame from Joe > on eBay, that's depreciation. If the used frame has some paint > chipping around the dropouts, that's.....you get the picture. We can > argue about how much to depreciate a Riv frame, or anything else. I > wouldn't depreciate it down to 25% after say 10 years, like some > claims payers might. So to wrap this up, my point is that it's > reasonable to look at the price of a comparable new frame (bike), > decide what kind of depreciation to apply to the used bike in > question, and go from there. And of course the buyers emotions and > wants play into this a good bit. I would have rather had an orange > Sam with Hillborne graphics than the blue Bleriot. But it just wasn't > worth nearly double the price to me. Cheers, Steve
I suppose I should reply here, as it might very well be me that was implying that it's not quite appropriate to do a direct price comparison between a discontinued used model and a new current model. And, I should go ahead and say, anything I say isn't meant to offend, is simply my perspective, YMMV..... I will agree, if you want to have insurance replace a bike with a very comparable brand/model, then sure, you can insure it for a declared amount to make sure that if stolen, you could go and replace it (ie, replace a Rambouillet with a Roadeo). That would be a $1600 frame, being replaced with a $2000 frame. And, I love my Rambouillet, it's an awesome bike. I really would like to think that, it'd be reasonable to expect that an insurance company would replace it with a brand new Roadeo if anything ever happened to it. And if I had an Atlantis that was a year or two old, maybe it'd not be too unreasonable to argue with insurance that they could just buy a new one to replace it. But, realistically, as soon as you drive a car off a lot, it's a used car. A few years later, once a company has replaced it with a new model, if I went to sell it, I wouldn't expect to set its price directly compared to a new car, I have to look at the price for which used ones of its same year are selling, regardless of the new model being the one that's most like it. I had a Subaru, a month old, 2nd payment not-yet-made on it, and it was rear-ended. Shouldn't have been totaled, but, as it was a new model that had just came out, the parts weren't available to repair it, they were all going into making new ones, so insurance decided to total it out instead. And I couldn't even get them to do a replacement on it with another. It had less miles on it than some new cars that have been test-driven a lot, and they still wouldn't. There is a lot of truth in that old statement, tho', that it's worth what someone will pay for it. I deal with old Land Rovers (have a '72 and a '60), and all the time, see people pricing them ridiculously high, thinking they're overly collectable. (Orvis had a nice 'restoration' done that was recently priced at $80k). And, often, someone with one to sell gets lucky: someone with disposable income sees one, catches a fancy, and can drop a lot of money on one. But the long and short of it is, it's an old Rover, even if nicely done, even if like new, shouldn't really ever go for more than $20k, and really, $10k is high for one in even pretty good daily driver condition. But, if someone's willing to $30k for one, who am I to say that it 'shouldn't' sell for that? Bikes aren't cars. And, I understand that, perhaps, someone is willing to pay a premium because it's got a Joe Bell paintjob, because it's a great paint. But for me, if I was buying a used bike, the fact it has a JB paint job or not wouldn't influence me to want to offer more; IMO, that's something that was worth more to the original buyer who had it painted, but not the average buyer. Sure, maybe it happens to be a JB paintjob in the 'exact' custom color that you would repaint the frame in anyway, then you're actually saving money by not having to repaint it. But, maybe, someone who knows what a JB paintjob is, is probably a different kind of bicyclist, eh? Maybe I'm too pessimistic. I usually think of myself as being overly optimistic, but, I really wouldn't see paying 'more' for a frame than what it originally cost. It'd be nice to think that I am wrong on that, maybe my Ram is worth more than what I think, but, I don't see it as an investment, it's simply a great ride. As I said, not trying to step on toes, I'm not meaning to offend, but, that's my perspective.... FWIW..... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
