Lamy 2000 2021 edition?

[Nurmister]

4 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

It's only overpriced if the price causes supply to far exceed demand, and force subsequent clearance of the unsold stock at significant discounts, thus demonstrating obvious, perhaps even embarrassing, commercial misjudgment. How those prospective customers who make up latent demand at typical asking prices for run-of-the-mill Lamy 2000 pens feel about the MSRPs of limited and special editions is no yardstick.

 

Haha. This is a good, if rather mercantile view of pricing. I suppose I consider it overpriced in terms of its "intrinsic value", especially relative to the regular 2000. Does a color change add hundreds of dollars of value to the pen? I don't think so, since I gauge the regular 2000's price as being commensurate with the model's value. This "intrinsic value" way of evaluating pens is a bit dangerous, though, since I like Montblancs!

[maclink]

4 hours ago, Nurmister said:

 

Haha. This is a good, if rather mercantile view of pricing. I suppose I consider it overpriced in terms of its "intrinsic value", especially relative to the regular 2000. Does a color change add hundreds of dollars of value to the pen? I don't think so, since I gauge the regular 2000's price as being commensurate with the model's value. This "intrinsic value" way of evaluating pens is a bit dangerous, though, since I like Montblancs!

 

For me, it's just a matter of expectation within the fountain pen market and seeing so many LE pens appear on the market.  I can't say that I've seen any other pen produced as a LE with that sort of markup on price and the only basic difference is a colour change! 

 

But I have to admit that Smug makes his point that has truth in it.  Like art and things vintage, people are willing to pay a lot for something exclusive or difficult to find.  It's the exclusivity that brings value and not the intrinsic value.  How much are you willing to pay to get a brown Lamy 2K when only a very limited number will be made available for purchase with so many wanting one??

[A Smug Dill]

5 hours ago, Nurmister said:

I suppose I consider it overpriced in terms of its "intrinsic value", especially relative to the regular 2000.

 

If the ‘right’ price is to be determined by a product's intrinsic value, such that it is neither overpriced nor underpriced, then what other opportunities exist for you (or anyone else) to fulfil your need or want at which prices is irrelevant, because (perfect or imperfect) substitutes and competing products in the market are extrinsic to the product in question.

 

What is a product's intrinsic value anyway? You, as a prospective purchaser or user, are extrinsic to it and so are your needs and wants. Furthermore, even if a product's value is necessarily premised on how it fulfils a user's need, then if you have a situation right now in which you need a writing instrument or lose/forfeit $50 (for whatever incontestable reason), then would a pen's intrinsic value be $50 and should therefore be priced at $50? If you pay $50 for the pen, then you don't prevail by being able to utilise or capitalise on the pen's intrinsic value anyway; you simply get to own and keep the pen that you didn't have before, but you don't ‘save’ any money. And what about on a different occasion, when you stand to lose/forfeit $170 if you don't have (the use of) a writing instrument? Does the pen's intrinsic value then become $170? Or is it $50+$170 over the two occasions, and so the pen should have been priced at $220 in the first place?

[Calabria]

9 hours ago, jchch1950 said:

Nice colour.expensive pen. Black, blue,2 stainless steel versions , do I need the brown one?.....Maybe yes .

Haha my thoughts also. (But I’ll hold off for now.)

[austollie]

7 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

If the ‘right’ price is to be determined by a product's intrinsic value, such that it is neither overpriced nor underpriced, then what other opportunities exist for you (or anyone else) to fulfil your need or want at which prices is irrelevant, because (perfect or imperfect) substitutes and competing products in the market are extrinsic to the product in question

 

Hi Smug Dill,

 

Whilst I tend to agree that the value of a product (intrinsic or otherwise) is linked to what people are prepared to pay for it, I think that's letting off manufacturers a little too lightly.  I am a fan of Lamy products and the Lamy 2000 Bauhaus was right up my street in terms of colour.  I even found one for sale at list price in the short period before they were snapped up.  

 

So why didn't I buy one?  I would have felt foolish paying more than double the price of the standard Makrolon version, just so that I can have it in a different colour.  Was it worth that amount?  You can argue that, given that it was sold out at that price, it must have been worth that to enough people.  However, to me there is a fine line between manufacturers using limited editions for creating a marketing buzz and manufacturers profiteering by creating an artificial shortage.  As much as I enjoy using Lamy pens, including my Lamy 2000 Makrolon, I felt that Lamy was on the wrong side of that line.  

 

In terms of the new brown version, if indeed that is what will be released, I will pass, even if it sold at a discount to the standard pen.  That colour is just not for me.

[langere]

I just laughed when I saw the LE Brown pen's price. I can hardly distinguish this pen from the original color. And at six times the price!  Ha!

 

Erick

[dan in montreal]

At least this thread has gotten back on track. For all this discussion around intrinsic value, hypotheticals and various other things, I can see why a Lamy collector would want one. Limited edition run. I get it. But I will not be buying one as I am not that person.

It is a nice brown, though.

[austollie]

1 hour ago, langere said:

I just laughed when I saw the LE Brown pen's price.

 

Your post caused me to google to see if I could find one for sale or pre-order and then I stumbled onto a Canadian site that had them available for pre-order at CDN 675.75.  That's more than AUD700.   Well, at that price, even if I really wanted one (and I don't), I'd be giving 3,300 other people a chance to buy all the limited editions!  That price is truly ridiculous.

 

[maclink]

5 hours ago, austollie said:

 

Hi Smug Dill,

 

Whilst I tend to agree that the value of a product (intrinsic or otherwise) is linked to what people are prepared to pay for it, I think that's letting off manufacturers a little too lightly.  I am a fan of Lamy products and the Lamy 2000 Bauhaus was right up my street in terms of colour.  I even found one for sale at list price in the short period before they were snapped up.  

 

So why didn't I buy one?  I would have felt foolish paying more than double the price of the standard Makrolon version, just so that I can have it in a different colour.  Was it worth that amount?  You can argue that, given that it was sold out at that price, it must have been worth that to enough people.  However, to me there is a fine line between manufacturers using limited editions for creating a marketing buzz and manufacturers profiteering by creating an artificial shortage.  As much as I enjoy using Lamy pens, including my Lamy 2000 Makrolon, I felt that Lamy was on the wrong side of that line.  

 

In terms of the new brown version, if indeed that is what will be released, I will pass, even if it sold at a discount to the standard pen.  That colour is just not for me.

 

I think this is spot on.  I've have 3 Black makrolon L2K's and a Steel version.  I haven't sold them off either.  I would find it really nice to have a different colour and would be willing to pay more than the standard price for one. However, like you, I did have the opportunity to purchase a Blue Bauhaus and ended up not buying one since I'd pay 3 times the price of the standard black.  The same goes for this brown version.  I just don't feel right supporting, by paying that sort of asking price.

[Nurmister]

23 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

If the ‘right’ price is to be determined by a product's intrinsic value, such that it is neither overpriced nor underpriced, then what other opportunities exist for you (or anyone else) to fulfil your need or want at which prices is irrelevant, because (perfect or imperfect) substitutes and competing products in the market are extrinsic to the product in question.

 

What is a product's intrinsic value anyway? You, as a prospective purchaser or user, are extrinsic to it and so are your needs and wants. Furthermore, even if a product's value is necessarily premised on how it fulfils a user's need, then if you have a situation right now in which you need a writing instrument or lose/forfeit $50 (for whatever incontestable reason), then would a pen's intrinsic value be $50 and should therefore be priced at $50? If you pay $50 for the pen, then you don't prevail by being able to utilise or capitalise on the pen's intrinsic value anyway; you simply get to own and keep the pen that you didn't have before, but you don't ‘save’ any money. And what about on a different occasion, when you stand to lose/forfeit $170 if you don't have (the use of) a writing instrument? Does the pen's intrinsic value then become $170? Or is it $50+$170 over the two occasions, and so the pen should have been priced at $220 in the first place?

 

I do see your point, and I need to be more precise regarding how I think a fountain pen's intrinsic value is to be derived. In one sentence:

 

a fountain pen's intrinsic value is determined through the crowd's consensus on what price the pen's materials, features, and design should command.

 

These "crowd-sourced" opinions are what I have learned from over the years, and now contribute to myself. If at the beginning of my hobby, I learned from others that it is customary for the industry to charge $1000 at minimum for gold-nibbed pens, I suspect I would have gone along with it. This may seem extreme, but there are other industries with huge mark-ups: carbonated drinks come to mind.

 

This is roughly echoed by austollie and maclink, along with the general murmuring on this thread: the L2K brown is "too expensive" for what it "is", as has been decided by the collective experience of this forum over the years, across many pens, and now applied to this model.

 

 

Whereas you appear to define intrinsic value as:

 

the opportunity cost of not purchasing the pen (in monetary terms), and thus, also regardless of its substitutes.

 

I think your approach doesn't factor in the intangibles of why users may opt for fountain pens over other kinds, and specific models of fountain pens over others -- which is exactly what sustains this industry, and keeps releasing LEs a lucrative strategy. There is no fountain pen, and certainly no specific fountain pen model for which there would practically be a monetary opportunity cost for not buying it. Thus, by your definition and my following of your logic, all fountain pens have no intrinsic value. This certainly seems unreasonable for me as a romantic and a hobbyist.

 

This is interesting. Ultimately, you're right: I used the term "intrinsic value" inappropriately, given how it is used in business!

[A Smug Dill]

38 minutes ago, Nurmister said:

Whereas you appear to define intrinsic value as:

 

The opportunity cost of not purchasing the pen (in monetary terms), regardless of its substitutes.

 

No, but I was asking you how you were defining intrinsic value.

 

To me, the intrinsic value of a writing instrument is its function; and that value is absolute unless the item becomes ‘broken’. A Lamy 2000 55th anniversary limited edition in brown has no more intrinsic value than a Lamy 2000 blue Bauhaus limited edition, Lamy 2000 Black Amber limited edition, run-of-the-mill Lamy 2000 Makrolon, run-of-the-mill Lamy Al-Star in some colour, PenBBS 494 (clear-bodied piston-filler), Jinhao 51A, or even a BIC ballpoint pen. Neither the colour, nor the body material, nor the filling mechanism gives it more intrinsic value. Nor does the model's history, reputation, rarity, etc.; nor do the sentiments of someone extrinsic to the pen.

 

If someone subscribes to the view that their late grandfather's old fountain pen has more intrinsic value than any unit of the same pen model, then the same logic can be argued that the sentiment of some buyer could imbue the Lamy 2000 in brown with more intrinsic value; one individual's loving memory of his grandfather is not logically more important or of more value than someone else's love of brown, or rarity, or the idea that he owns something that the ‘average’ peer and equal in whatever relevant capacity cannot also have (because it is rare).

 

Now, if nobody wants to write any more, then a writing instrument may end up having no worth (if it's not being bought and/or collected for other reasons) in the market, in spite of its intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of a smallpox vaccine is what it does, irrespective of whether humans still consider it necessary and are willing to pay to produce, keep or administer it. Whether there's an unforeseen second coming of smallpox in the world, now that nobody gets vaccinated against it, has no bearing on the intrinsic value of (any unit of) the vaccine.

[A Smug Dill]

16 hours ago, austollie said:

Hi Smug Dill,

 

Whilst I tend to agree that the value of a product (intrinsic or otherwise) is linked to what people are prepared to pay for it, I think that's letting off manufacturers a little too lightly.

 

The last clause in the above seems to imply there is some obligation, duty or outcome for which the manufacturers are held accountable and/or responsible; otherwise, there would be nothing from which they could be “let off”, a little too lightly or otherwise.

 

Yet I have no idea what you're implying they owe us to do or deliver. As hobbyists, as consumers, or even as humans, we are not owed anything by pen manufacturers, unless we have entered into an agreement, contract and/or transaction with them to deliver to us something fit for a particular purpose, and usually receiving some payment or other consideration from us in exchange. In other words, only in the capacity of (paying) customers would they have an obligation to us, irrespective of how else we would like to identify ourselves, or see for-profit businesses as participants in “the hobby”.

 

In the case where a manufacturer has actualised a product that embodies the means to materially or functionally satisfy one or more of our needs, wants and desires, it has already provided a valuable service to us, by increasing our options by one (particularly if the starting point was nil). It certainly does not owe us to satisfy all, or even most, of the material wants and/or commercial demand in “the community”, especially on our preferred terms. I see it as disingenuous to describe a company's decision to make (only) a finite number of units available as “creating an artificial shortage”. Firstly, if it chose to not produce any units at all, the “shortage” would be greater, so it is alleviating not creating that shortage arising from latent demand for a product that meets some specification and/or criteria. Secondly, if it forecasts it will only be able to sell N units readily at its target unit price $M to achieve a particular level of profitability, then it is unreasonable to expect a business to product significantly more than N units just because more hobbyists would be prepared to buy them at a significantly lower price than $M and gain satisfaction, especially if one is not arguing that doing so would result in a higher level of profitability and therefore a win-win outcome, for both the company's owners/ shareholders and the group of interested retail consumers, that ought not be forgone. It should not be incumbent on pen manufacturers to compromise or sacrifice their enterprise objectives for “the good” of pen users; the former are not in the public service, and the latter has no inherent claim to leverage and benefit from the manufacturers' production capability as if it was a community-owned asset.

 

It is of course your prerogative to choose not to reward for-profit enterprise for making sound commercial decisions, but that has nothing to do “letting off” anything as if you had the authority to do so in the market relationship dynamic. More than a couple of thousand of your fellow consumers needed little encouragement to choose to buy the Lamy 2000 blue Bauhaus, independently of your decision and without unduly imposing their own values and decision logic on you.

 

I believe the demand for the Lamy 2000 in different colours (of the same type of polycarbonate as Makrolon) already exists, irrespective of whether Lamy chooses to come to party to satisfy it; ergo, there is already a shortage, and not one created by Lamy's marketing department. I believe there is already latent demand specifically for a brown Lamy 2000, before Lamy decided that a brown Lamy 2000 would sell well enough as a limited edition and subsequently invested in producing a batch. Choosing to fulfil some demand instead of nil is not “creating an artificial shortage”; and deciding on an MSRP that would cause an otherwise interested Lamy 2000 fan to shy away from buying one is not wilfully cutting him/her off, when the company cannot dictate how much of a premium he/she would be comfortable with paying, or grudgingly pay, to scratch an itch that (another unit of) the run-of-the-mill Lamy 2000 Makrolon cannot.

 

I like the blue Bauhaus' colour well enough, but I wouldn't have been comfortable with paying even a 25% premium for a nice colour other than black, if it were just another regular catalogue item. However, because it was a limited edition, and perceived as fervently sought-after in the target market with a blink-and-you'd-miss-it level of mismatch between preexisting demand and forecasted supply, I could justify paying 250% more‡, to have a pen that is functionally just as good as the commonplace black version, but comes in a nice box with a nice ‘bonus’ notebook, on account of buying the I-have-it-and-you-don't characteristic the Lamy 2000 Makrolon does not have; and it feels good to be able to afford it. That a lot of ardent fans of the pen model (when I'm not one) paid even more for some of the other 1918 units provides another psychological reward for the opportunist, even without necessarily being interested in ‘flipping’ the pen for profit somewhere down the line. That may well be foolish thinking in others' eyes.

 

For the brown 55th anniversary edition, I don't think I'd personally be prepared to pay twice what I paid for my (bought brand new, and as yet never inked) black Lamy 2000 — which I got for US$99 — but I don't mind at all that Lamy set the MSRPs it did to try it on for size, and cooling my interest in one as a side effect. The higher price and the larger number of available units are a reasonable answer to those who complained it was so difficult to get one of blue Bauhaus sets upon release; a different compromise is effectively put on the table for the prospective buyer.

 

Conspiring to allow those who want a brown Lamy 2000 to secure one, and thus fulfil a completely arbitrary material want, without a fight with other fans, without personal sacrifice and without keenly feeling how much their not being satisfied with just the Makrolon version costs them, would be “letting [them] off a little too lightly.” It's not as if ‘we’ ought to be putting the squeeze on for-profit businesses with capability, resources and wealth to produce and deliver desirable products more economically, but frown on milking retail consumers who have money to spare on their hobbies and are choosy with cosmetic concerns, but could easily live with forsaking that “artificial” fulfilment. Resolving the tension between what they have (including but not limited to money) and what they want is entirely their own accountability and responsibility.

 

 

‡ For a pen model I was repeatedly advised “punches well above its weight” and ought to be worth US$400 or more, compared to other Western fountain pen offerings in the market.

[austollie]

5 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Yet I have no idea what you're implying they owe us to do or deliver.

 

Hi Smug Dill,

 

Firstly, I must say that I like your well-argued texts and your well-flowing prose, evidencing years of honing the craft of writing.

 

What I am implying is that manufacturers, particularly those not selling commodities, seek to build a relationship with their customers.  I don't begrudge any manufacturer making a reasonable margin (and thus return on investment), but I do take umbrage when manufacturers (and retailers for that matter) exploit artificial shortages, self-created or otherwise, to increase margins excessively.  For example, I (and dare I say other consumers) have a long memory for those selling toilet paper at at increased margins, when we had a temporary shortage at the start of the pandemic (not that the manufacturers or retailers created that shortage- that was caused by irrational consumers).  The big manufacturers and retailers didn't take advantage of the situation.  They were motivated by at least two reasons: 1) to avoid turning the public against them leading to a loss of business longterm; and 2) to avoid the wrath of the government (given government's ability to regulate prices).  Now Lamy doesn't need to concern itself with the second point (no sensible government would step in to regulate the price of special edition fountain pens), but it should concern itself with losing the the loyalty of its customers.

 

So what do I expect in return for my brand loyalty to a manufacturer?  I do expect the manufacturer not to unreasonably increase [yes, I split infinitives] its margins, at a time of artificial shortage.  That goes for Lamy and that goes for other manufacturers.  Now what I will credit Lamy with is that it didn't use this practice on the Safari.  Had Lamy increased the price of the special edition Savannah Green, knowing that almost no collector of Safari special editions would want to miss out on that, it would have lost me as a customer forever (or at least for a long time).  What Lamy is doing with the Lamy 2000 is in a different category, because it didn't first create expectations with collectors of Lamy 2000 pens that special editions would be sold at standard prices, only to then hike up the prices, once collectors were invested in the concept of special editions for that range.  For that reason, I will let the matter slide, in terms of my purchasing patterns with Lamy.

 

So yes, I do believe that manufacturers of fountain pens owe us a reasonable pricing policy for special editions, in return for our brand loyalty.  If they choose to profiteer, I will choose to send a signal of disapproval with my wallet.

[lucraak]

The Brown LE is also dropping here in the Netherlands now (or at least, pre-sales are opening). I called some companies to see if they are available and almost all of them already have ben "reserved" (even before the presale). It is flipping expensive but it looks like the demand is quite high. 

[Uncial]

I do often wonder about these limited editions that come with such significant mark ups. I mean, if there is such demand would it not make better business sense to just add it to the standard lineup and make more money over the longer term than a slosh of money for a very brief period?

[A Smug Dill]

21 minutes ago, Uncial said:

I mean, if there is such demand would it not make better business sense to just add it to the standard lineup and make more money over the longer term than a slosh of money for a very brief period?

 

No, I think not. It makes more sense to keep stirring things up by releasing limited edition colourways, get people to talk about it and fan FOMO in each other, so that they'll continue to pay higher prices and give manufacturers higher profitability. It doesn't take a whole lot of investment to produce and market yet another limited edition, but I'm sure you'll agree the last thing any business would want is for consumers to feel they can hold off buying until they feel comfortable or until there is a discount campaign on standard catalogue items; and it doesn't hurt the companies to take the money (at MSRP) first on the limited number of units available, then let the after-market jack the prices up as some consumers try to flip theirs, thus creating the perception that it is better to just pay MSRP upfront and pre-order one of the next limited editions.

[Uncial]

Maybe I'm odd in this regard then. I tend to buy a pen because I like the look and price and at least know roughly what I'll be getting in writing experience. I don't think I've ever bought anything on the basis of FOMO. 

 

I still can't fathom the maths of it though. Safaris come in different colours without crazy price hikes or fear of limited numbers but have a dedicated collectors following from those who love them. It seems odd not to follow that same successful model in the 2000 range. I really don't get selling a new colour for a few months as opposed to adding to the lineup to sell for the next forty to fifty years.  It just seems like a self destruct model of business to me.

[A Smug Dill]

51 minutes ago, Uncial said:

I tend to buy a pen because I like the look and price and at least know roughly what I'll be getting in writing experience.

 

Then it shouldn't matter that the special colourways are out of reach on account of their pricing policy which rubs you the wrong way. Lamy 2000 fans can always get the run-of-the-mill black Makrolon and be purists about it, have four different units if it suits them, instead of getting the pen in different colours since it won't add to the writing experience.

 

51 minutes ago, Uncial said:

Safaris come in different colours without crazy price hikes or fear of limited numbers

 

The Safari is a school pen. Different target market.

 

51 minutes ago, Uncial said:

It seems odd not to follow that same successful model in the 2000 range.

 

I don't think it's odd at all; and if people think of the Lamy 2000 as a better class of pen, or even themselves as a better class of pen users, they're not denied the opportunity to get a sombre and professional black pen just like everyone else who sees the pen as a writing instrument and not a object of beauty that offers some sort of visual differentiation.

[maclink]

7 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

Then it shouldn't matter that the special colourways are out of reach on account of their pricing policy which rubs you the wrong way. Lamy 2000 fans can always get the run-of-the-mill black Makrolon and be purists about it, have four different units if it suits them, instead of getting the pen in different colours since it won't add to the writing experience.

 

I have 2 Makrolons and have to open each pen to inspect the nib in order to know which nib is which especially if I have them both inked as I currently do.  What if I wanted the same nibs but for different inks?  It's for this reason why I have multiple Plats 3776's and Pelikan 40x's, each in a different colour/finish.  I'd buy a different colour L2k in a snap for this practical reason, but alas, it's only possible by through paying for LE with a huge markup.

 

At the moment, I do little things like place them in different places knowing that the one in a particular location is the one with the F vs the OB nib.

[A Smug Dill]

21 minutes ago, maclink said:

What if I wanted the same nibs but for different inks?

 

I understand the rationale, but I was addressing specifically:

7 hours ago, Uncial said:

I tend to buy a pen because I like the look and price and at least know roughly what I'll be getting in writing experience.

and not any other considerations such as variety, convenience in distinguishing one from another, etc. The same look, price and nib style (which may be of the same width grade or more varied) ought to appeal the same to the particular individual.

 

I have a dozen Platinum Plaisir pens in different colours and about as many Platinum #3776 pens myself; no two are the same. But then, while I'd expect all the cheap Plaisir pens to be priced nearly identically but for inflation, I didn't (and don't) have a problem with the Platinum #3776 Kanazawa-haku, briar, celluloid, etc. having significantly higher prices, in spite of not being limited editions; and in fact not all the briar models are the same price.