20 ms·

I prefer original pressings whenever possible. It's still sometimes cheaper, but that is quickly going the other way.

buildsjets 3mo ago
I keep 3 pressings of Led Zep II out so I can demonstrate the difference to people who don’t believe that there is one. A first-week Robert Ludwig mastered version, a second-week pressing of the Ahmet Ertegun disaster, and 1977 remaster that really sounds just as good as the 1969 RL mix and is a lot cheaper. $20 for a VG+ copy compared to $1300. I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill. https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/the-hot-mix-of-the-led-zeppelin-ii1969-by-robert-ludwig?srsltid=AfmBOop86zJ6gnWNKLnbAr-q8_uHGPKkTUwAQGz4jS6XxHeVEC-cd0u1 https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/the-...
- lmm 3mo ago
  > I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill. How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?
  - bravura 3mo ago
    Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
    - thaumasiotes 3mo ago
      He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. Try raising the value of the record and see what you think about it.
      - prollings 3mo ago
        Why? We know the price was $1300. Doesn't mean anyone would buy it for that much. So try lowering the number and see what you think? The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
      - embedding-shape 3mo ago
        > He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. I typed up something, but ended up almost antagonistic. I realize I just feel sad that for some people money is literally the single goal in their life, seemingly nothing else matters.
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        What are you talking about? They didn't say anything about what decision is correct. They just said that the two decisions are equivalent. Please note the use of the word "insane" is specifically because buildsjets said it was insane.
      - NikolaNovak 3mo ago
        Mathematically that's absolutely true. Emotionally, it feels different. It's fascinating to see downright angry gut reactions! A few years ago my friend was selling his expensive camera on Kijiji. I asked him to sell it to me for slightly less as a friendly discount. He told me that's the same as just randomly one day giving me a wad of cash, so why would he do that?? I thought he's crazy and was a little bit offended. Actually maybe a fair bit offended! It took me YEARS to realize that 1. He's absolutely completely Inarguably correct, and 2. People would find me no less crazy if I adopted same perspective. Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :).
        pbhjpbhj 3mo ago
        Yes, strictly true, but friendship is worth it, no? Do you spend a couple of hours with a friend and then hand each other bills for the hours? Clearly there was a[n opportunity] cost to both of you, after all. Just spending time together without charging would be like randomly handing over a wad of cash ... >Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. They're not the same. £20 item to buy, I have £100; buying leaves me £80. Either, I have £100; not buying/selling leaves me £100 £20 item I own, I have £100; selling leaves me £120. In the first case maybe I can't make rent now. In the last case I have more cash, but then I need to spend money if I want entertainment/utility that the item had. In the first case I lose 25% of my cash; in the last I gain 20% (this matters when you're sharing your money across different needs).
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        If you're trying to make rent right now it makes a difference. In the long run it's looking at X income and comparing how much better/worse off you'd be with X-1 and X+1 income, and those two deltas are almost the same. The fluctuation in value of the object will make a bigger difference than the technicalities of buying versus selling.
        throw0101a 3mo ago
        > Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :). Price and value are not the same. The logic of your friend was basically putting a price on how "special" (or not) he saw your relationship versus some rando-buyer online. That is why people (close to you) get riled up emotionally: they're being treated in a way no different than a complete stranger.
      - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
        I have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record collection. An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.
      - prmoustache 3mo ago
        The fact it sold once at that price doesn't mean there is still someone willing to buy it at that price. And he doesn't necessarili need thos $1300
    - pembrook 3mo ago
      OP has a valid question though. If you think its insane to spend that amount of money on it (essentially: it's not worth that much to you), then you holding onto it instead of having $1300 is pretty much the exact same scenario? By holding onto it you're saying it is worth that much to you. It sounds like believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional level. I would probably do the same thing. It's just funny to see expressed on HN where everybody complains that advertising and marketing are evil/scams and proclaims loudly how rational they are.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - chownie 3mo ago
        He wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the start was he wanted the thing. On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
        foobarbecue 3mo ago
        Take me to your reader
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        > He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars If you decline to sell a thing for an easy 1300, doesn't that mean you value it at 1300 or more?
        Borealid 3mo ago
        Technically no, because selling a thing is both a risk and a cost (of time and money).
        brazzy 3mo ago
        Only if you actually need the 1300 cash, or think that you won't be able to sell it in the future.
    - thatguy0900 3mo ago
      It's the thought process you learn by having some financial issues in life. You feel guilty for owning expensive things instead of selling them to buy other things. I have the same problems with trading cards I own from a long time ago that are now expensive, I can keep them for sentimental reasons or sell them to put it towards some bill
    - jmalicki 3mo ago
      It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.
  - williamdclt 3mo ago
    If they don't need $1300 cash, they don't have any real reason to sell it
  - mrweasel 3mo ago
    The logic is a little broken for me... If he really wanted the record, and got it for $2, why would he then sell it and then not have it? Replacing it would cost at least $1300. You're logic is why so much in this world if fucking broken. Everything is a grift, a hustle, an opportunity for profit.
    - NikolaNovak 3mo ago
      People are getting angry at the math here. I'm Not the OP and have no moral judgement here, but from strict bank account balance perspective it's the same. Persuade me otherwise through addition and subtraction, not moral appeals. 1. I have 10,000 in my bank account. 2. I see a 1,300 record I like 3. I buy it 4. My bank account now has 8700 5. There's 1,300 difference if I choose to buy it or not 1. I have 10,000 in my bank account 2. I have a 1,300 record 3. If I sell it my bank account will have 11,300 4. 1,300 difference if I choose to sell it or not No "end of the world, this is what's wrong with everybody" gross hyperboles please, I don't care one iota about whether anybody buys or sells expensive records, I don't make any moral judgement whatsoever and would appreciate people in turn not making extreme assumptions about what I think about expensive records. But economically, buying an expensive item or selling expensive item is the same - Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.
      - mrweasel 3mo ago
        > Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please But my point is that I don't care about the numbers. If fact my complaint was that it was made into a financial decision, just because the record happens to be worth $1300. If it was a $10 record, bought used at $2, then few would argue that you should sell it and make $8. My argument is that it doesn't matter if you could make $8 or $1298, not if you enjoy the record and wish keep it. It's the defaulting to "You could make money" in so many of aspects of life that's starting to annoy me.
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        It's fine if you want to own and use an expensive thing. The argument is not "you could make money", the argument is that if you got the expensive thing for free and choose not to sell then you're roughly as "insane" as the person that paid full price. Go ahead and splurge but try not to be a hypocrite about it. It's not lmm that was passing judgement, it was the person that owns the record passing judgement.
  - hidroto 3mo ago
    all right let me buy one of your kidneys, after all you only need one.
  - iainmerrick 3mo ago
    Even if you think in purely transactional terms like "asset currently worth $1300", what's wrong with holding onto an asset? Especially one that's likely to appreciate, not depreciate, as long as you look after it carefully. And in the meantime, you get to enjoy owning it.
    - axus 3mo ago
      This is the psychological basis of capitalism: we enjoy owning things.

I keep 3 pressings of Led Zep II out so I can demonstrate the difference to people who don’t believe that there is one. A first-week Robert Ludwig mastered version, a second-week pressing of the Ahmet Ertegun disaster, and 1977 remaster that really sounds just as good as the 1969 RL mix and is a lot cheaper. $20 for a VG+ copy compared to $1300. I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill. https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/the-hot-mix-of-the-led-zeppelin-ii1969-by-robert-ludwig?srsltid=AfmBOop86zJ6gnWNKLnbAr-q8_uHGPKkTUwAQGz4jS6XxHeVEC-cd0u1 https://www.therevolverclub.com/blogs/the-revolver-club/the-...

lmm 3mo ago
> I am not insane so I did not spend $1300 on a used vinyl record, I found mine for $2 at Goodwill. How is holding onto it instead of selling it for $1300 any less insane than buying it for $1300 in the first place?
- bravura 3mo ago
  Who taught you this? And why do you think this way?
  - thaumasiotes 3mo ago
    He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. Try raising the value of the record and see what you think about it.
    - prollings 3mo ago
      Why? We know the price was $1300. Doesn't mean anyone would buy it for that much. So try lowering the number and see what you think? The value is what someone is willing to pay for it.
    - embedding-shape 3mo ago
      > He thinks that way because it's the only correct way to think. I typed up something, but ended up almost antagonistic. I realize I just feel sad that for some people money is literally the single goal in their life, seemingly nothing else matters.
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        What are you talking about? They didn't say anything about what decision is correct. They just said that the two decisions are equivalent. Please note the use of the word "insane" is specifically because buildsjets said it was insane.
    - NikolaNovak 3mo ago
      Mathematically that's absolutely true. Emotionally, it feels different. It's fascinating to see downright angry gut reactions! A few years ago my friend was selling his expensive camera on Kijiji. I asked him to sell it to me for slightly less as a friendly discount. He told me that's the same as just randomly one day giving me a wad of cash, so why would he do that?? I thought he's crazy and was a little bit offended. Actually maybe a fair bit offended! It took me YEARS to realize that 1. He's absolutely completely Inarguably correct, and 2. People would find me no less crazy if I adopted same perspective. Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :).
      - pbhjpbhj 3mo ago
        Yes, strictly true, but friendship is worth it, no? Do you spend a couple of hours with a friend and then hand each other bills for the hours? Clearly there was a[n opportunity] cost to both of you, after all. Just spending time together without charging would be like randomly handing over a wad of cash ... >Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. They're not the same. £20 item to buy, I have £100; buying leaves me £80. Either, I have £100; not buying/selling leaves me £100 £20 item I own, I have £100; selling leaves me £120. In the first case maybe I can't make rent now. In the last case I have more cash, but then I need to spend money if I want entertainment/utility that the item had. In the first case I lose 25% of my cash; in the last I gain 20% (this matters when you're sharing your money across different needs).
        Dylan16807 3mo ago
        If you're trying to make rent right now it makes a difference. In the long run it's looking at X income and comparing how much better/worse off you'd be with X-1 and X+1 income, and those two deltas are almost the same. The fluctuation in value of the object will make a bigger difference than the technicalities of buying versus selling.
      - throw0101a 3mo ago
        > Buy for $x, have and not sell for $x, same mathematically. But oh boy will people get instantly riled up emotionally :). Price and value are not the same. The logic of your friend was basically putting a price on how "special" (or not) he saw your relationship versus some rando-buyer online. That is why people (close to you) get riled up emotionally: they're being treated in a way no different than a complete stranger.
    - JKCalhoun 3mo ago
      I have no idea, have not looked into the value of my record collection. An easy end to that line of reasoning for me.
    - prmoustache 3mo ago
      The fact it sold once at that price doesn't mean there is still someone willing to buy it at that price. And he doesn't necessarili need thos $1300
  - pembrook 3mo ago
    OP has a valid question though. If you think its insane to spend that amount of money on it (essentially: it's not worth that much to you), then you holding onto it instead of having $1300 is pretty much the exact same scenario? By holding onto it you're saying it is worth that much to you. It sounds like believing you hunted down a 'deal' causes you to wildly change how you perceive value at an emotional level. I would probably do the same thing. It's just funny to see expressed on HN where everybody complains that advertising and marketing are evil/scams and proclaims loudly how rational they are.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - chownie 3mo ago
      He wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the start was he wanted the thing. On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
      - foobarbecue 3mo ago
        Take me to your reader
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        > He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars If you decline to sell a thing for an easy 1300, doesn't that mean you value it at 1300 or more?
        Borealid 3mo ago
        Technically no, because selling a thing is both a risk and a cost (of time and money).
        brazzy 3mo ago
        Only if you actually need the 1300 cash, or think that you won't be able to sell it in the future.
  - thatguy0900 3mo ago
    It's the thought process you learn by having some financial issues in life. You feel guilty for owning expensive things instead of selling them to buy other things. I have the same problems with trading cards I own from a long time ago that are now expensive, I can keep them for sentimental reasons or sell them to put it towards some bill
  - jmalicki 3mo ago
    It's called the fallacy of sunk costs.
- williamdclt 3mo ago
  If they don't need $1300 cash, they don't have any real reason to sell it
- mrweasel 3mo ago
  The logic is a little broken for me... If he really wanted the record, and got it for $2, why would he then sell it and then not have it? Replacing it would cost at least $1300. You're logic is why so much in this world if fucking broken. Everything is a grift, a hustle, an opportunity for profit.
  - NikolaNovak 3mo ago
    People are getting angry at the math here. I'm Not the OP and have no moral judgement here, but from strict bank account balance perspective it's the same. Persuade me otherwise through addition and subtraction, not moral appeals. 1. I have 10,000 in my bank account. 2. I see a 1,300 record I like 3. I buy it 4. My bank account now has 8700 5. There's 1,300 difference if I choose to buy it or not 1. I have 10,000 in my bank account 2. I have a 1,300 record 3. If I sell it my bank account will have 11,300 4. 1,300 difference if I choose to sell it or not No "end of the world, this is what's wrong with everybody" gross hyperboles please, I don't care one iota about whether anybody buys or sells expensive records, I don't make any moral judgement whatsoever and would appreciate people in turn not making extreme assumptions about what I think about expensive records. But economically, buying an expensive item or selling expensive item is the same - Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please.
    - mrweasel 3mo ago
      > Prove it wrong with numbers not appeals to emotion please But my point is that I don't care about the numbers. If fact my complaint was that it was made into a financial decision, just because the record happens to be worth $1300. If it was a $10 record, bought used at $2, then few would argue that you should sell it and make $8. My argument is that it doesn't matter if you could make $8 or $1298, not if you enjoy the record and wish keep it. It's the defaulting to "You could make money" in so many of aspects of life that's starting to annoy me.
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        It's fine if you want to own and use an expensive thing. The argument is not "you could make money", the argument is that if you got the expensive thing for free and choose not to sell then you're roughly as "insane" as the person that paid full price. Go ahead and splurge but try not to be a hypocrite about it. It's not lmm that was passing judgement, it was the person that owns the record passing judgement.
- hidroto 3mo ago
  all right let me buy one of your kidneys, after all you only need one.
- iainmerrick 3mo ago
  Even if you think in purely transactional terms like "asset currently worth $1300", what's wrong with holding onto an asset? Especially one that's likely to appreciate, not depreciate, as long as you look after it carefully. And in the meantime, you get to enjoy owning it.
  - axus 3mo ago
    This is the psychological basis of capitalism: we enjoy owning things.