How does cosmetic condition affect the value of a lens?

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm curious - and I expect that the answer to this will be very subjective, but it'd would nevertheless be interesting to know - what are your thoughts on how the cosmetic condition affects the value of an M lens if it is in all other respects, including optically and mechanically, in top shape?

 

br

Philip

 

[ropo54]

A very non specific and non scientific stab in the dark: perhaps a 20% price differential from pristine to user condition?

[spydrxx]

Although I often have bought and sold Leica gear, including lenses, in less than mint cosmetic condition, but otherwise fine, I usually offer a 10-20% sales discount from recent sales prices of similar items if the condition of mine isn't as good cosmetically, otherwise comparable price. BTW, in over 49 years of buying and using Leica gear, I've only once bought new, but then I still got a discount from Leica thru their military sales program at the time. However, when I'm negotiating to buy gear which isn't cosmetically mint, I usually open the negotiations with a much lower price than asked, but not enough to p*ss off the seller, assuming the seller will negotiate at about a 20% discount.

[Ko.Fe.]

M lens? If lens is worn out due to long use it is often not only exterior. But aperture blades as well. I don't mind dull exterior, I know how to repaint numbers, but I have no idea how to make aperture blades back to black. And if lens is really worn out, it is doesn't feel solid and even CLA will not fix it. Even with M lens.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Philip,

 

Perhaps it is not as hard to determine as you might think.

 

Leitz/Leica lenses fall into 2 different major, sometimes conflicting/contradictory, categories simultaneously:

They are relatively expensive, useful tools where the majority of their value is determined by their utility value (Ability to take nice pictures & stand a significant degree of being "beaten up" while doing it.) & therefore: Cosmetic variation is not that significant in determining value. Value, to a point, is determined by their cost of production or cost of replacement with equivalent lenses.

 

At the same time: They are: Desirable, pricey, upscale, trendy, swank knickknacks where current rarity & current demand can significantly alter their value. Sometimes in a relatively short period of time: In this situation small imperfections or blemishes (Sometimes so small that it is hard to see them.) can make big differences in their current value. Cost of production or cost of replacement by equivalent lenses are not much of a factor here.

 

This second category is shared by the swank knickknack market in general: Whether it the market in lenses, paintings, Chinese porcelain or Coca-Cola Art.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Ecar]

AFAIC, it depends on what the cosmetic issues are: normal wear and tear from heavy usage is generally fine, particularly so with an old lens, but major dents suggest a lens that's been dropped, with potential consequences that would require repairs which cost would be substantially higher than 20% of its value.

I have never bought a lens with "impact marks" that I have not been able to inspect and test before shelling out the money.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First, the lens must be truly rare. Second, it must look to be in new condition. We know a lens never used is likely sticky, but that does not matter to a collector.

 

Value? Follow the market which changes all the time. It is a moving target.

 

Philipus do you have a particular lens in mind?

[jdlaing]

I,know one dealer that grades on a scale of 10.

Anything less that 5 out of ten is sold as a bargain at 50% of new value or less.

For the 5-10 he rates 10 as "as new",

Each point less drops 8% in cost.

[earleygallery]

A well used lens is a sign that it's a particularly good example of its type.

[pico]

And a collector would say, "See here, this old lens is so stiff and gummed up 'cause it has never been used! That's a good thing, Son!"

[pop]

I have learned from collectors of vintage cars that you don't touch up a car to look like it was manufactured today; you don't even restore it into a state resembling like it was when new. You try to restore it to the state it was in when last in regular use.

[jaapv]

Meet the Concours-maniac with a 99 points car. Even the heads of the bolts underneath the body are polished and flawless, the car never driven.

[philipus]

Thank you for the replies. 

 

I am loosely thinking of getting rid of my 35 Summilux FLE and 75 APO which I use rarely. My purpose for asking the question is not to max out what I could get but rather to arrive at an appropriate asking price should I decide to put them up for sale.

 

br

Philip

 

First, the lens must be truly rare. Second, it must look to be in new condition. We know a lens never used is likely sticky, but that does not matter to a collector.

 

Value? Follow the market which changes all the time. It is a moving target.

 

Philipus do you have a particular lens in mind?

[wattsy]

I'm curious - and I expect that the answer to this will be very subjective, but it'd would nevertheless be interesting to know - what are your thoughts on how the cosmetic condition affects the value of an M lens if it is in all other respects, including optically and mechanically, in top shape?

 

 

There are too many variables involved to give a definitive answer, Philip, but, generally speaking, the cosmetic condition doesn't make as much difference as one might expect. Leaving rare collectibles aside (where anything goes, depending upon rarity), a modern Leica lens for which there is a basic demand always seems to have a floor below which you cannot buy a functional example. For example, a mint 35 Summilux FLE might fetch £2,500 in today's market if the seller is fortunate (a discount of at least £1,000 from the new retail price) whereas a fairly scabby looking example with perfect glass and mechanics will probably still command £2,000. There are always a number of people without infinitely deep pockets who prize the functionality of a lens and who will see £2,000 for a 35 Summilux as a bit of a bargain. Another section of the market, for whom condition and appearance is everything, probably wouldn't want to buy such a lens at all. 

[luigi bertolotti]

Thank you for the replies. 

 

I am loosely thinking of getting rid of my 35 Summilux FLE and 75 APO ....

Those are CONTEMPORARY lenses... for USERS... cosmetics in itself hurts no much (provided, as you postulate. that real usabilty/quality is OK) : a USER, unless having the cult of "unboxing the new" , is happy to spare money for an item he won't treat as a baby... : the monetary meaning ? 20 max 25% just to say.

With collectibles is quite different... my WORN Thambar could fetch well 50% less than a B - one  (not to speak of "with original box and case"...)... my (fine) Hektor 125 has hood, cap... NOT its special "boxing" back cap !!! ... -30/40%....

[philipus]

Ian and Luigi, thank you for the detailed replies. I'll have a look around at various sources to try to arrive at reasonable prices. 

[Tailwagger]

I also think, at least with currently available lenses, that  it varies with the market demand for the particular optic. I recently picked up a 3 year old 135 APO in the box with case etc, for 50% of the original price, as although it was otherwise optically and mechanically perfect, it had the slightest dent in hood, and a few nicks to the focusing ring.  All the comps I saw with no such flaws were priced 80-85% of new.  I suspect cosmetics for the FLE, given the high demand have less impact than for the 75mm which enjoys a bit less popularity.

[tobey bilek]

Depends if you get a return option.  How do you evaluate performance without use?  Maybe it had heavy use , then dropped so it became a auction item.  Then again I have seen perfect older lenses that did not image well at all.  

 

I no longer buy used.  

 

Assuming it works,  60% discount from new.

[Stein K S]

Hi

A stupid question maybe, but while we are at it... I quite coincidentally got the opportuny to buy a rather mint copy of the Summicron 28 in silver. And when I found out that it is quite rare... and I actually mostly use a 35 paired with the 75 cron and the beautiful 24 elmarit, the 28 stays mostly in its box. However, some paint in the DOF marking is missing on the otherwise seemingly mint 28 cron and the ¨stupid¨ question is in what degree this reduces value of it?

 

Just as one example to add to the discussion maybe?

 

Regards, Stein

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Exodies]

The lens is utterly worthless. To get an idea of the importance of DOF in the forum, see this tread https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/273058-a-difficult-question-shooting-square/