[meteorite-list] Meteorite economics revisited
From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:32:45 2004
Adam, lets get one thing clear, I refused one, ONE
offer, that was from David Gregory who called me
trying to buy some kilos of Bensour. I was not on
particularly good terms with him and told him that
since he was such a mover and shaker in Morocco (Not)
that he get it himself.
Last time I checked I live in and do business in the
United States of America, where I can damn well choose
who to sell to, and who to refuse service to for any
reason. Is there anyone else on this list who was
turned down? I did run out of material anmd did not
honor that price when Bensour was acquired on further
trips. I see that much like a sale at any shop in the
World. A price might be offered and then when the sale
is over, it is no longer honored.
Adam, these trifle points are really not helping you.
A monkey could see through this ploy to try and make
me look like the bad guy here, I am not, I got a new
fall, am offering it for a fair price and still making
a profit. Leave it at that please. You are looking a
little bad right now trying to say that buyers are
getting screwed by paying low and fair prices. There
is absolutely no logic there and the posts have
I did not sell to David Gregory, that was my choice, I
sell to whom I want, I dont sell to Matteo any more
either. (PS I think Matteo might be having a computer
virus problem right now:)
Lesson to be learned here, buy from who you want to,
sell to who you want to, anyone doesnt like it, OH
--- Adam Hupe <adamhupe_at_comcast.net> wrote:
> Dear Rob and List,
> This could prove to be a good subject for friendly
> In response to this question asked on the previous
> "When someone offers material at a fire-sale price,
> I fail to see how
> that hurts other sellers of the same material.
> After all, what's to
> stop those sellers from simply buying-out the
> "rogue" seller?"
> In this case, the so-called "rogue" seller was not
> willing to honor the
> publicly made offer to anybody who put in a large
> order, in other words it
> was more for show. The public perception then
> became that this material has
> now dropped in price to a certain level even though
> in most cases it was not
> being honored at that level. This caused problems
> for honest dealers trying
> to protect their investments. Perceptions are very
> important as anybody who
> runs a business will tell you.
> Another point is that even if the "rogue" party was
> willing to sell to
> another dealer at half his initial costs. The
> dealer would have to
> dollar-cost-average down his inventory never
> reaching the break even point
> due to the limited amount of material. Why should
> the honest dealer shell
> out more money when he already has a considerable
> amount invested?
> "Why, yes - no damage at all. Meteorite dealers
> don't set prices --
> buyers do. Since meteorites are a non-essential
> commodity, if the
> price is too high, people simply go without."
> That is why I used a birthday fall as an example.
> If one source was in
> control of an entire fall because others felt it was
> not worth going after
> than they could ask anything they wanted. Say a few
> collectors wanted the
> fall very badly because it landed on their birthday.
> My guess is if they
> could afford it they would pay the unreasonably high
> price. Say two dealers
> had the same fall. Then the price would be in check
> because if one dealer's
> price was two high then the collector could always
> approach the other
> Yes, dealers sometimes do set the prices. It then
> becomes a matter of trust
> for collectors that they are not paying too much.
> The standard business
> supply and demand argument only works for true
> commodities not for
> meteorites in all cases. This is because no two
> falls are alike just like no
> two pieces of fine art are alike. Is fine art a
> commodity in the business
> sense? Do investors buy futures on meteorites or
> fine art?
> Just some more thoughts,
> Meteorite-list mailing list
Received on Wed 03 Mar 2004 02:57:17 PM PST