LOL, here's what i don't understand about record people (and by extension, myself)
if 1/3 the time put into learning labels, what to grippe, what to flip, and general nuances of the hustle was reinvested into learning about capital markets, i bet the majority of us would be sitting on flush e-trade accounts rather than healthy paypal accounts with fractional worth.
I'm confused by this post.....selling an original pressing of an LP that is later reissued is unscrupulous??
I reckon it is when you know it's being reissued and you don't tell the buyer especially when you are the one reissuing or bootlegging Not talking years in the future, but like a month later In financial markets its known as insider dealing
Hilarious.
I'm no Wall St. whiz but if you compare records to stocks wouldn't having knowledge about an upcoming re-issue and revealing such info be the same as insider trading??
Not if there's disclosure which in this case there'd be ...and the info would be public at that point. That said, this is common practice and one should take it as warning sign as opposed to being ass-hurt.
I mean, yeah, it isn't particularly difficult to find out that a reissue is in the works... if for some reason that strikes fear into your heart... which I really don't understand in the first place. If it's a good record I don't see how a wider audience hearing it is going to hurt the value...
I think the other dynamic here too is whether prices are high due to demand or supply. A reissue, to me, wouldn't stunt demand if the record is legitimately rare to begin with. I have a reissue of "El Malo" by Willie Colon and, to some extent, I've avoided buying a VG- copy of it on Fania cloud label since I figure, "well, if it's a secondary press and in wack condition, what's the point?" But the fact I own the reissue wouldn't stop me from dropping, say, $75-100 on an original gold label in Reynaldo condition if the opportunity presented itself.
If a record is rare and good then the extra attention brought about by a reissue is going to at worst keep the price solid... if not give it a trendy bump upwards. I mean, all the sudden you've got a whole other group of people interested in it in addition to the people who were already paying attention. Now, if it's some over-inflated piece of garbage that was really only selling for $200 because no one had heard it that's another story. Seriously though, this "insider trading" analogy is some paranoid little dude fantasy.
i remember when stark reality got reissued it was a 2-300 dollar record at most. i've seen it go over a grand since the reissue. maybe people wanted to hear the non reissued tracks or something.
i don't know if that's always the case though.
it's the same thing with sharing mp3s. does having the album on your computer make people want it less or more than not having it ?
personally if i hear an album and it's fire i must have it on original form no matter where i heard it, on my computer, from someone elses copy sound snippets on ebay, etc.
If a record is rare and good then the extra attention brought about by a reissue is going to at worst keep the price solid... if not give it a trendy bump upwards. I mean, all the sudden you've got a whole other group of people interested in it in addition to the people who were already paying attention. Now, if it's some over-inflated piece of garbage that was really only selling for $200 because no one had heard it that's another story.
This is pretty much the reality of the situation IMO... but in these days and times I don't think there are nearly as many records that are overinflated like that. So many ways to hear stuff ahead of time, and the globalization of the record market bringing to light the "actual" availability of most titles have to some extent evened prices out I think.
And I say that to say this: while in the 90s there may have been a lot of titles that dropped in value after being reished I don't think this happens too often today...
I'm confused by this post.....selling an original pressing of an LP that is later reissued is unscrupulous??
I reckon it is when you know it's being reissued and you don't tell the buyer especially when you are the one reissuing or bootlegging Not talking years in the future, but like a month later In financial markets its known as insider dealing
Hilarious.
I'm no Wall St. whiz but if you compare records to stocks wouldn't having knowledge about an upcoming re-issue and revealing such info be the same as insider trading??
:::eyeroll:::
Do you have any idea why insider trading is sometimes verboten? Because it violates a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
There is no group analogous to shareholders in the record game.
This whole thing is absurd, though, and relies upon the assumption that somebody buying a big ticket collectible actually cares whether or not it is being reissued--I certainly don't and think assuming that a potential buyer would is a serious stretch.
This whole thing is absurd, though, and relies upon the assumption that somebody buying a big ticket collectible actually cares whether or not it is being reissued--I certainly don't and think assuming that a potential buyer would is a serious stretch.
What I find interesting is that Skel is basing his impressions on: "My earlier experiences of this came in the late 80's"
I can't say how much the record game has or has not changed in the 20 intervening years but I don't know if I'd let experiences from that far back still color my impression of how the game works today.
In any case, I have to agree that there's no responsibility - ethically or otherwise - that a seller owes to a buyer in selling them a record outside of the basic, "do you want this record at this price, yes or no?" This is a classic example of where the hate should be directed at the game, not the players. I've overpaid on plenty of records in my time but I can't really blame for the buyer for it unless they mislead me in terms of condition or pressing.
This whole thing is absurd, though, and relies upon the assumption that somebody buying a big ticket collectible actually cares whether or not it is being reissued--I certainly don't and think assuming that a potential buyer would is a serious stretch.
What I find interesting is that Skel is basing his impressions on: "My earlier experiences of this came in the late 80's"
I can't say how much the record game has or has not changed in the 20 intervening years but I don't know if I'd let experiences from that far back still color my impression of how the game works today.
In any case, I have to agree that there's no responsibility - ethically or otherwise - that a seller owes to a buyer in selling them a record outside of the basic, "do you want this record at this price, yes or no?" This is a classic example of where the hate should be directed at the game, not the players. I've overpaid on plenty of records in my time but I can't really blame for the buyer for it unless they mislead me in terms of condition or pressing.
The more provocative question is whether a seller has any obligation to disclose that he is sitting on quantity of a record previously believed to be quite rare.
That practice is obviously a fundamental element of The Game(TM), but I can see a lot of SoulStrut dudes getting ass-hurt over it.
i remember when stark reality got reissued it was a 2-300 dollar record at most. i've seen it go over a grand since the reissue. maybe people wanted to hear the non reissued tracks or something.
i don't know if that's always the case though.
The Stark Reality has been a sought after record for a decade; $2-300 would have been a steal for it long prior to the Stones Throw reissue.
Prices on records fluctuate all the time for a million different reasons, whether or not there's a reissue is pretty irrelevant.
i remember when stark reality got reissued it was a 2-300 dollar record at most. i've seen it go over a grand since the reissue. maybe people wanted to hear the non reissued tracks or something.
i don't know if that's always the case though.
The Stark Reality has been a sought after record for a decade; $2-300 would have been a steal for it long prior to the Stones Throw reissue.
Prices on records fluctuate all the time for a million different reasons, whether or not there's a reissue is pretty irrelevant.
JP great point!!
Really I got lost with this thread. It was about selling Etiquette. Now it's about price fluctuation.
Comments
But would you have DANSER'S INFERNO?
Not if there's disclosure which in this case there'd be ...and the info would be public at that point. That said, this is common practice and one should take it as warning sign as opposed to being ass-hurt.
i don't know if that's always the case though.
it's the same thing with sharing mp3s. does having the album on your computer make people want it less or more than not having it ?
personally if i hear an album and it's fire i must have it on original form no matter where i heard it, on my computer, from someone elses copy sound snippets on ebay, etc.
This is pretty much the reality of the situation IMO... but in these days and times I don't think there are nearly as many records that are overinflated like that. So many ways to hear stuff ahead of time, and the globalization of the record market bringing to light the "actual" availability of most titles have to some extent evened prices out I think.
And I say that to say this: while in the 90s there may have been a lot of titles that dropped in value after being reished I don't think this happens too often today...
:::eyeroll:::
Do you have any idea why insider trading is sometimes verboten? Because it violates a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
There is no group analogous to shareholders in the record game.
This whole thing is absurd, though, and relies upon the assumption that somebody buying a big ticket collectible actually cares whether or not it is being reissued--I certainly don't and think assuming that a potential buyer would is a serious stretch.
What I find interesting is that Skel is basing his impressions on: "My earlier experiences of this came in the late 80's"
I can't say how much the record game has or has not changed in the 20 intervening years but I don't know if I'd let experiences from that far back still color my impression of how the game works today.
In any case, I have to agree that there's no responsibility - ethically or otherwise - that a seller owes to a buyer in selling them a record outside of the basic, "do you want this record at this price, yes or no?" This is a classic example of where the hate should be directed at the game, not the players. I've overpaid on plenty of records in my time but I can't really blame for the buyer for it unless they mislead me in terms of condition or pressing.
The more provocative question is whether a seller has any obligation to disclose that he is sitting on quantity of a record previously believed to be quite rare.
That practice is obviously a fundamental element of The Game(TM), but I can see a lot of SoulStrut dudes getting ass-hurt over it.
The Stark Reality has been a sought after record for a decade; $2-300 would have been a steal for it long prior to the Stones Throw reissue.
Prices on records fluctuate all the time for a million different reasons, whether or not there's a reissue is pretty irrelevant.
JP great point!!
Really I got lost with this thread. It was about selling Etiquette. Now it's about price fluctuation.