Retail?


When listing an item's new retail, should the price be the current retail, or the price of the item at the time it was purchased? If you know someone bought an item for $2,500, it is 3 years old, and the say the current price is $3,300 and are asking $2,200 - is this appropriate and honest or somewhat not?
pubul57
Bill, what you say is of course true in economic terms - value is determined by the parties, but I do not trust someone not providing full disclosure of material facts, and this pricing question I raise is material to me. Disclosethe facts and let me decide whether it is worth the premium of an increase in current MSRP - that's fair.

I would feel dishonest buying something for $2000 when the list is $3,500 and 3 years later trying to sell it for $2,900 when the price rose to $4,800 without disclosing that fact - I just would not do it. I suppose it is a matter of what feels like the right thing to do and I suppose we all follow different rules.

I would not buy a 3 year-old piece of Manley gear that did not reflect the new/used price at the time the seller bought it - but I would buy a 40-50 year old Mac/Marantz selling for mulitples of the retail at the time it was made, and you will find no seller feels the need to hide that fact - there is value in high quality vintage having nothing to do with MSRP.
I'm with Sebrof and Theo on this one. The only relevant retail price is the current one. Everyone here assumes that retail prices only increase over time. I have seen retail prices of imported gear decline (sometimes significantly) when a change in distribution occurs. I don't think it would be appropriate to list the old retail price given that the current price is lower.
If that were to happen I would simply by it new, or the seller takes a bigger hit if he wants to sell under those conditions (a lower current prioe for an item previously purchased - the risk you take as a buyer I suppose, though it does not happen often), at least there is transparency. I still think that the person that bought a $2000 amp for $1000 3 years ago, and now asks for $2,500 because the list $4,000 is doing something not quite right if not disclosed up front. I can than decide if I want to buy at the asking price; there is just something about a windfall that rubs me the wrong way, but clearly we don't all feel the same way....but this debate might be more intractable than tubes versus SS:)
Pubul57,
So selling a house or piece of real estate for profit is something you also find objectionable?

If not how is that different than an amplifier, bottle of wine, rare coin/stamp, classic car, etc?

Put your emotion aside and understand the selling price is all that matters if you've done some homework and research. It's the buyer's responsibility to ascertain what he/she is buying.

Just sayin.........
As as seller I would feel an obligation to not be deceptive, and that listing the current MSRP wich is several thousand more than it was when I paid for it used on Audiogon 3 years ago is deceptive in intent, it is purposefully concealing a material fact, namely the "New" price for the particular item up for sale at the time it was made and sold. I am perfectly alright with a seller trying to eek out more in the sale by saying that now it would cost you X to buy it new today - that is honest dealing IME.

As a buyer I always do my homework, which is why I spot this trend of what I preceive to be unearned, unwarranted windfall profits and I simply don't do business with folks that are not upfront. I might actually choose to buy the piece if they were honest about it.

I'm just saying....