Retail?

I don't trade much, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I would say *current* retail. When evaluating the price of a potential purchase, it seems like the most salient comparison is what I would presently have to pay new, not what I could have paid in the past (and no longer can). If the retail price increased gradually over a period of years, the asking price should reflect age; if there is a sudden large increase (Manley?) the seller got lucky, and that's life.

IMHO, of course.

John

Is the OP really asking is it fair that the seller is only going to loose $300.00 from the sale of his item from what he bought it for new?

Lets put this in perspective. If you bought your house in 1965 for $22,000 and want to sell it now, would you put it on the market for $20,000 or would you put it on the market for current value?

For me, I don't really care what the seller puts in his ad for the original price. It's only worth what the seller gets for it.

Yeah, both the price at the time of purchase and current one should be mentioned.
Some people do confuse the issue in their ads and also sometimes inflate the retail prices but not necessarily intentionally.

If you're selling, for example, a 1967 tri- power Corvette for $100K tell me how the original purchase price is an issue. As a prospective buyer, I could care less.

At the end of the day, isn't what you pay all that matters?

Guess we need a "Price Police", not going to happen. The current new price, original price, or what someone actually paid to a dealer are all considered retail. Should I buy a used piece of equipment, and know the price is fair, compared to market value, bluebook, sales history, etc, what difference does it make as to the listed retail by the seller? I am more concerned with condition and history of that particular unit. It makes no sense to even list the new retail for a used piece of gear. If you buy a used car, or anything else, does the seller list, or quote a new retail price?