Insurance and its effect on what Leica gear we own.

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Leica system is insured anywhere in NZ. 
 

The significant cost to replace it in the event of total loss means the premiums are very steep. 
 

Obviously, all Leica stuff is by and large quite expensive. The biggest issue for me is my 50 Apo Summicron. It’s a very lovely model 11811 in black chromed solid brass, with red lettering etc and was made in a long ended limited run of 700 using the bodies made for the LHSI version (less the LHSI engraving etc obviously). I guess that since Leica had tooled up to produce the brass barrels already, a short additional run to maximise profit on the project made sense. 
 

I bought it for a good price and it’s beautiful to use and to gaze at. Really top drawer construction that is enough to make it stand apart even from the already high production standards. 
 

The problem arises in replacing it if need be. I explained to the insurer that, as at the time we were having the discussion, I could find 3 of the lenses for sale. 2 on eBay in the USA and 1 at a London dealer. The prices are between NZ$25k and $30k not including any tax or duty on arrival in NZ. That could add 20%. 
 

The insurers accepted the point and the risk and sent me a large bill. 
 

Pondering the cost of insurance recently relating to other matters, I began to wonder if it’s actually sensible to own lenses etc that start to cause steep increases in insurance. 
 

I don’t want to sell it really but I could see a time coming where I might not keep it just because it’s too expensive to insure. I expect if I told them it wasn’t going to be used and would be locked in the safe the policy cost would reduce, but what’s the point of owning gear you can’t use - unless it’s super rare and collectible like say a red anodised copy or something. 
 

What do you think?

Edited 1 hour ago by Kiwimac

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jankap]

With camera insurances it is always so, that the insurance thinks, that you want to buy a new camera.

Insurances want to earn money. Their motive is not for the case, that there comes a nice gentleman with heaps of money on his account, who doesn´t want to take care of his expensive camera and who wants to get money in the almost extreme seldom instance, that a thieve observes, that there is a camera or lens in the neighborhood with a red dot on it.

Does somebody know, what a red dot is, by the way?

 

Edited 12 minutes ago by jankap

[WvE]

I'm "trying" to keep the value of my gear to a minimum. Yes, an expensive (insured) M11 but with two old (uninsured) lenses. I don't want to look over my shoulder all the time when I'm out shooting. For a recent trip to Vietnam, I only took my (uninsured) Zeiss 50mm Sonnar, it perfomed well.