Good finds

[Senpai]

It's really interesting what has appreciated and what has depreciated. Like who would think the Raf consumed parkas would become so iconic they'd be reaching 250k yen on yjp. While very limited artisan pieces end up going for pennies on the dollar compared to retail. I can't make sense of it, besides that recognizability and probably well published editorials have a key role in the pieces reaching their iconic "grail" status.

[cjbreed]

faust - yes. yes i do. i also recall that at that time carpe diem was still somewhat fresh to many of us and luc and m.a+ were new and vital. now the market is populated with the remainders and the pretenders, whose work only makes me long for the original. and meanwhile those two best post carpe lines, luc and m.a+, haven't put out a new design in ages. they've let their stock drop so to speak. altieri himself hasn't produced a really compelling design since carpe ended. i mean i like memoria but its a little odd and nowhere near worth the $$. and continues et al is now as rare as hens teeth. and of course ccp is in a self imposed exile.

i'm saying i blame the designers. if you don't produce great work for a sustained period of time then what you once did will simply mean less to people, regardless of how amazing the garments themselves are.

[guardimp]

Yet raf has made mediocre stuff at best for the last 10 years and his older stuff sells like hotcakes. Helmut quit over 10 years ago and his bondage stuff still sells for bundles. Carol stoped making new stuff a while back and still sells great - for example used drips barely losing any value. What differentiates these brands from brands like luc or ma+ where being used is a death knell for pricing?

[Faust]

I hate to bring this up again, because for some reason it rubs the fanboys the wrong way, but CDiem, Poell, and such were never in Fashion with capital F. Their audience was always limited and always under the radar. And if you are not in it, you cannot really influence it. An iconic collection becomes iconic when FASHION makes it iconic (mostly through press). End of story.

[cjbreed]

well in the raf case i think its a bit of nostalgia. but he did kill it for a long time and he did produce a great collection recently.

helmut is iconic and produced stellar work for years. he's in a different level as far as i am concerned.

and ccp does not sell like it used to. only certain items like the drips and some of the leathers. and i was primarily referring to the "artisinal" line up of usual suspects on SZ. not big fashion. i mean shit look at chanel.

[Shucks]

If it sells for that price. Things are worth what people are willing to pay, not what they're willing to list it for.

good point but it's not actually that simple.

first of all valuation (of a good or a business) is a complex process that can be carried out using several different methods. these can include a 'rule-of-thumb' approach using some standard mark-up on the seller's own purchasing cost for the good/business, a 'market approach' where 'comparable' transactions in the market are used as benchmarks, an 'income approach' which is based on projected future income from the good/business, an 'asset approach' that evaluates the specific components/assets of the good/business and what they are worth on their own, an auction-type process with bidding from potential buyers, a 'replacement cost' approach where one considers the cost for the seller of making/acquiring a replacement for the good/business which is to be sold, etc etc..

all of these methods have their weaknesses, and hence they should be considered together, to find the listing price (for the seller) or the target price (for the buyer).

also, the negotiation process itself strongly influences the final selling price and THE LISTING PRICE IS CRUCIAL since it provides an 'anchor' for the negotiation process. an 'anchor' is a psychological phenomenon which creates cognitive bias for the parties in the negotiation - research has shown that the price first listed (i.e. the anchor) in a negotiation has a bigger effect on the final price than any counteroffers made by the buyers.

of course you could still say that only once there has been a successful transaction has a 'real' value been established, but this is debatable also since the agreed upon value was only actually established for that particular moment in time and for those particular parties involved (valuation is 'situational' - one of the main problems with a 'market-approach' to valuation), and both parties may leave the table still with a different perception of the actual value of the good/business than the one that was agreed upon, and they may in fact have been quite poor at applying valuation/negotiation methods and another more skilled party might have achieved a very different outcome in the same situation.

but enough on this.

[cjbreed]

that was a good ass post

[BrokenBoards]

BrokenBoards,

This here is more than 10 seasons old. And appears to be appreciating over time considerably above original retail price.

I didn't say EVERYTHING depreciates in value over time. A good find isn't always cheap and a cheap find isn't always good. Taking Peasant's advice and giving less of a fuck!

[TriggerDiscipline]

good point but it's not actually that simple.

first of all valuation (of a good or a business) is a complex process that can be carried out using several different methods. these can include a 'rule-of-thumb' approach using some standard mark-up on the seller's own purchasing cost for the good/business, a 'market approach' where 'comparable' transactions in the market are used as benchmarks, an 'income approach' which is based on projected future income from the good/business, an 'asset approach' that evaluates the specific components/assets of the good/business and what they are worth on their own, an auction-type process with bidding from potential buyers, a 'replacement cost' approach where one considers the cost for the seller of making/acquiring a replacement for the good/business which is to be sold, etc etc..

all of these methods have their weaknesses, and hence they should be considered together, to find the listing price (for the seller) or the target price (for the buyer).

also, the negotiation process itself strongly influences the final selling price and THE LISTING PRICE IS CRUCIAL since it provides an 'anchor' for the negotiation process. an 'anchor' is a psychological phenomenon which creates cognitive bias for the parties in the negotiation - research has shown that the price first listed (i.e. the anchor) in a negotiation has a bigger effect on the final price than any counteroffers made by the buyers.

of course you could still say that only once there has been a successful transaction has a 'real' value been established, but this is debatable also since the agreed upon value was only actually established for that particular moment in time and for those particular parties involved (valuation is 'situational' - one of the main problems with a 'market-approach' to valuation), and both parties may leave the table still with a different perception of the actual value of the good/business than the one that was agreed upon, and they may in fact have been quite poor at applying valuation/negotiation methods and another more skilled party might have achieved a very different outcome in the same situation.

but enough on this.

Shucks That comment was very insightful. you actually had answered a couple of questions I had on the subject myself.

This is the kind of stuff that I like to read about when it comes to consumerism, and it's even more interesting when applied to our corner of the internet.

[DudleyGray]

Yeah man, great post.

[zen dog]

Shucks, that was a good post/analysis, but I think DudleyGray's response was closer to the truth for bottom line value. I liked your post because it is important to understand the dynamics of pricing as buyer/seller and bystander.

A bit of a tangental ramble here:

People go to outlet malls for a better deal. Brands have picked up on that and produce items of slightly lower quality for the malls. Putting things on sale gives the idea of a "score" or bargain often without the buyer stepping back and looking at quality/design/need.

I'll cut to the chase and say that "real" value is so transitory that it exists only at the moment of the transaction. I can go further and say "value" may be a misleading word since it may be based on false assumptions at the time of transaction. Stepping past the various complaints found around here, if you get a good deal on a bushel of apples and find all of them wormy after the first two layers isn't value or its lack based on an element that goes beyond hindsight? Does value always include the possiblity of a falsehood at the moment of transaction?

I'm an antique dealer. I know people like a deal an usually build giving a 10-20% discount into the price. When buying I know to ask for a better price because most people build that into their price with the same idea in mind (not this 50% off shit certain TV shows try to show as normal). If the price is very good, intentionally or unintentionally if don't ask for a better price. I see many of those people 1,2,3 times a month. The value of the transaction is good will, respect, better future deals and items held for me that extends into the future. Before 2008 a number of us antique dealers would buy things we might break even or lose money on, understanding the true value of the transaction.

Speaking of 2008, what a great, hard lesson in value. Homes, objects plummeted followed by a "what were we thinking?" when looking beck only six months ago. Getting back to the present look at gold prices- over $1800, lower than $1200 an ounce? Here is something so elemental (ha!) that it is looked to as a standard of value and it has moved by a third recently and much of that from psychology- stripping it of much of its inherent value.

The idea of reporting movies' weekly gross is a recent curiousity Value is stripped to its nasty, monetary self and quality is in tension of putting seats in the seats. Entertainment piggy backs on entertainment.

Bottom line? Like you said, value is subject to so many other forces perhaps we should devalue it.( Chose your own smiley here.)

[Shucks]

I'll cut to the chase and say that "real" value is so transitory that it exists only at the moment of the transaction. I can go further and say "value" may be a misleading word since it may be based on false assumptions at the time of transaction.

why regurgitate the conclusion of my post as if it were your own?

[zen dog]

Sorry, man, I was just trying to give real life/real experience examples without being so obvious/specific as giving the applications here- buying/selling misrepresented clothes, being remembered as someone who lowballs, being posted as a good transaction,etc. My conclusions coincided with yours and were meant as experiential support.

Your analysis was good, but sometimes it is easier to hold in one's head real life situations to navigate other real life situations. The visceral is a good teacher.

[Shucks]

nothing "real-life" in that paragraph of yours i quoted. just a rehash of what i already wrote, and phrased as if it were your own insights. these conclusions didn't "coincide", you repeated mine. now let's move on.

[Grandseigneur]

nothing "real-life" in that paragraph of yours i quoted. just a rehash of what i already wrote, and phrased as if it were your own insights. these conclusions didn't "coincide", you repeated mine. now let's move on.

No, please don't dictate to us whether or not we should move on. Let the discussion follow its momentum and end accordingly.

Tell us why you so eagerly and passive aggressively claim ownership to ideas?