Lamy 2000 2021 edition?

[sirgilbert357]

Also, I'll just leave this here:

 

Kaco Edge -- Makrolon material, sold for $6.50 at the time of this post:

 

 

 

Must have been insanely expensive to reverse engineer that Makrolon from one of Lamy's pens, eh? I'm sure brown dye instead of black would cause the price to skyrocket at LEAST 400 bucks...

 

 

Just a bit of playful ribbing...don't take it too seriously.

[A Smug Dill]

6 hours ago, arcfide said:

But the key thing is that you don't get to just call all the shots.

 

Thank you for your eloquent post, which was a pleasure to read; but especially for expressly articulating the point above, which I think bears repeating. Being a fan of the Lamy 2000 (as a pen model) ought to have no bearing on the relationship dynamics between oneself and one's fellows — fellow fans of the model, or loyal customers of the brand, hobbyists who may not share one's love for Lamy, fountain pen users who don't necessarily see their use and/or appreciation of fine writing instruments as a hobby, consumers who may not even be primarily fountain pen users, and so on — or between oneself and entities on the production and supply side of goods. If the lack of power and influence in the relationship is frustrating, demoralising, makes one feel small or even incandescent with impotent rage, that is one's own hang-up, and not something which I think one ought to expect sympathy (even if there is empathy), solidarity and/or assistance from anybody else to change. The answer to “not being able to afford” something is to either voluntarily and knowingly decide to forgo, or do what it takes (at quite possibly significant risk and cost personally) to increase one's spending power.

 

Only Lamy can produce the pen model in different colours; and it has heard, and answered, the call from fans to make the Lamy 2000 in colours other than black. Only the individual fan/consumer can decide whether to part with his/her money to scratch that itch which is now possible once in a while; and sometimes scratching an itch causes other problems or damage to oneself, but that's for each person to weigh up however.

 

p.s. Drawing attention to the uncomfortable fact that one has little power in a relationship dynamic, is not inherently an expression of contempt. If a company's product pricing, or fellow forum members' posts, makes it harder for one not to be confronted and grudgingly acknowledge that he/she has less power that he/she would like to have, that's still not a reason to claim one is being insulted. Of course one can choose to feel insulted, but then others can quite reasonably point out that nobody else is intending affront or insult, and that grievance is of one's own making.

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by A Smug Dill

[arcfide]

8 minutes ago, sirgilbert357 said:

I don't take issue with some of the things you say in principle. But you trying to justify the higher cost through any means of explanation which you do not have personal, inside information on is just a bit much. 

 

Okay, I see where the disconnect is. I have not and am not trying to justify the pricing Lamy is using. I never have been trying to do that. What I'm doing is objecting to the arguments being used to suggest that such pricing is unreasonable (or unethical). I'm not making any specific judgment about Lamy's pricing as being either conservative or aggressive in their profit margins. I'm trying to point out that arguments centered around perceived alterations -- "they just changed a couple of colors and finishes, how hard can that be?" -- are not a fair evaluation of the actual costs involved in putting a new product into market. In other words, I think it's perfectly fair to say that you don't think the brown LE has sufficient worth to you for you (generic you) to purchase it, but I don't think it's fair to say that the price is unreasonable because it didn't cost Lamy relatively that much more to make and produce the pen, using the minimal characteristic changes as a justification for the belief that it didn't cost them that much to make the change. 

 

Rephrasing, all I'm saying is that you can't justify the price as being too high or unreasonable based on the fact that the pen has what appears to you to be minimal fundamental changes to the design. I'm not saying the pen is worth the price, only that the arguments used against the price so far aren't sound. 

 

As an example of the Al-star vs. Lamy 2000 that you make, we actually do have some inside information from Marco on that. In the Marco interview he says specifically that they tried to produce a red colored L2k (something they have experience with in other versions) and were unable to get it right, and so they had to scrap that project (at least for a time). So we know from internal sources that many of the things they have clearly been able to do with some of their pens they have tried and failed to achieve with their L2K line. That says a lot more, I think, than people assume. 

 

 

 

 

[arcfide]

4 minutes ago, sirgilbert357 said:

Must have been insanely expensive to reverse engineer that Makrolon from one of Lamy's pens, eh? I'm sure brown dye instead of black would cause the price to skyrocket at LEAST 400 bucks...

 

Just a bit of playful ribbing...don't take it too seriously.

 

I think we all know that as far as material costs, fountain pens have *huge* margins, except maybe for gold these days.  

[arcfide]

I think maybe it's also worth considering long term predictions. 

 

I think Lamy has been on a progressive investigation of the viability of increasing their product range via colors. They've clearly been interested in this for many years. But it's also clear that they have been taking incremental steps, and watching the market closely with each of those steps. Those early Safari pens emboldened them to release such offerings more frequently, and I think the continued demand and the increase in attention on higher priced pens and LEs from the Japanese market and maybe some of the American players and stores like Goulet and others that have done a lot of work to increase the market share have continued to encourage Lamy to expand. I personally think they're finally getting to the point that they are willing to start trying to take on more risk with colors in their L2K line because they feel that the fountain pen market is healthy enough to support it, and also because I think they see it as a means of gaining more market penetration in the US (which they were open in admitting wasn't good enough for them in years past). But I still think they're taking this slowly and going incrementally. 

 

I do think that they will add another regular edition L2K color into the mix in the not too distant future, but it will probably take a few more successful LEs or lots of consumer demand that reaches their ears to make them confident in taking that plunge. 

[sirgilbert357]

4 minutes ago, arcfide said:

 

Okay, I see where the disconnect is. I have not and am not trying to justify the pricing Lamy is using. I never have been trying to do that. What I'm doing is objecting to the arguments being used to suggest that such pricing is unreasonable (or unethical). I'm not making any specific judgment about Lamy's pricing as being either conservative or aggressive in their profit margins. I'm trying to point out that arguments centered around perceived alterations -- "they just changed a couple of colors and finishes, how hard can that be?" -- are not a fair evaluation of the actual costs involved in putting a new product into market. In other words, I think it's perfectly fair to say that you don't think the brown LE has sufficient worth to you for you (generic you) to purchase it, but I don't think it's fair to say that the price is unreasonable because it didn't cost Lamy relatively that much more to make and produce the pen, using the minimal characteristic changes as a justification for the belief that it didn't cost them that much to make the change. 

 

Rephrasing, all I'm saying is that you can't justify the price as being too high or unreasonable based on the fact that the pen has what appears to you to be minimal fundamental changes to the design. I'm not saying the pen is worth the price, only that the arguments used against the price so far aren't sound. 

 

As an example of the Al-star vs. Lamy 2000 that you make, we actually do have some inside information from Marco on that. In the Marco interview he says specifically that they tried to produce a red colored L2k (something they have experience with in other versions) and were unable to get it right, and so they had to scrap that project (at least for a time). So we know from internal sources that many of the things they have clearly been able to do with some of their pens they have tried and failed to achieve with their L2K line. That says a lot more, I think, than people assume. 

 

 

 

 

 

Then we agree.

 

[sirgilbert357]

4 minutes ago, arcfide said:

I think maybe it's also worth considering long term predictions. 

 

I think Lamy has been on a progressive investigation of the viability of increasing their product range via colors. They've clearly been interested in this for many years. But it's also clear that they have been taking incremental steps, and watching the market closely with each of those steps. Those early Safari pens emboldened them to release such offerings more frequently, and I think the continued demand and the increase in attention on higher priced pens and LEs from the Japanese market and maybe some of the American players and stores like Goulet and others that have done a lot of work to increase the market share have continued to encourage Lamy to expand. I personally think they're finally getting to the point that they are willing to start trying to take on more risk with colors in their L2K line because they feel that the fountain pen market is healthy enough to support it, and also because I think they see it as a means of gaining more market penetration in the US (which they were open in admitting wasn't good enough for them in years past). But I still think they're taking this slowly and going incrementally. 

 

I do think that they will add another regular edition L2K color into the mix in the not too distant future, but it will probably take a few more successful LEs or lots of consumer demand that reaches their ears to make them confident in taking that plunge. 

 

I have already suggested they do the stainless steel L2K in aluminum. Then they would solve some of the complaints about the steel one (too heavy, maybe cost?, etc), while instantly giving them a material which they are used to applying various colors to (their experience with Al-Stars, again!). They could either keep the brushed treatment or experiment with various surface treatments to give it more character.

 

It's an untapped market, I'm sure of it. Or maybe not. But either way, I would buy an aluminum L2k in heartbeat, even if it were 250 or 300 bucks...

[arcfide]

9 minutes ago, sirgilbert357 said:

 

I have already suggested they do the stainless steel L2K in aluminum. Then they would solve some of the complaints about the steel one (too heavy, maybe cost?, etc), while instantly giving them a material which they are used to applying various colors to (their experience with Al-Stars, again!). They could either keep the brushed treatment or experiment with various surface treatments to give it more character.

 

It's an untapped market, I'm sure of it. Or maybe not. But either way, I would buy an aluminum L2k in heartbeat, even if it were 250 or 300 bucks...

 

I think that would be a really neat idea, too. Though, I do think that maybe they tried to scratch that itch with the Aion (and frankly, I'm skeptical that an aluminum L2K would appeal to me more than an Aion, but...we'll see soon enough). 

[sirgilbert357]

48 minutes ago, arcfide said:

 

I think that would be a really neat idea, too. Though, I do think that maybe they tried to scratch that itch with the Aion (and frankly, I'm skeptical that an aluminum L2K would appeal to me more than an Aion, but...we'll see soon enough). 

 

Perhaps that's what they were aiming for with the Aion. If so, they missed the mark, in my opinion.

 

I wanted to love the Aion. It sits unused, waiting for the Classifieds to be resurrected so I can sell it. The section is too fat for me. The L2k looks sleeker and the way the cap closes feels unique among slip caps. It has a weight to it that the Aion lacks, as well. The Aion feels well balanced, but mostly hollow -- because it is.

 

What is interesting is that they have used anodizing for the Aion colors, whereas the Al-Stars use something else...a paint? A lacquer of some sort? Not sure, but it isn't anodizing. They might still finish some Aions in the Al-Star colors, and I think they'd sell more of them if they did, but I do not plan to hold my breath.

 

I also haven't heard back from Goulet Pens on my "Aluminum Lamy 2000" idea, so I doubt that will go anywhere. Shame...I really want a copper/bronze aluminum L2K.

[A Smug Dill]

13 minutes ago, sirgilbert357 said:

What is interesting is that they have used anodizing for the Aion colors, whereas the Al-Stars use something else...a paint? A lacquer of some sort? Not sure, but it isn't anodizing.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

9 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

Okay, I see where the disconnect is. I have not and am not trying to justify the pricing Lamy is using. I never have been trying to do that. What I'm doing is objecting to the arguments being used to suggest that such pricing is unreasonable (or unethical).

 

 

 

That's the problem. YOU don't get to decide what I think is unreasonable.

I get to decide that. 

You may disagree with what I think, and you can state why YOU think that it IS reasonable/ethical. But that is all.

Greedy, unethical, unreasonable, these are opinions. They can be more or less objective/fact based, but they are still opinions. Just because yours differs from mine does not invalidate mine, nor does mine invalidate yours.

 

9 hours ago, arcfide said:

 

I think we all know that as far as material costs, fountain pens have *huge* margins, except maybe for gold these days.  

Yeah, and on the brown 2000, it in my opinion crosses DEEPLY into "unreasonable" and borders on "unethical"

 

[sirgilbert357]

10 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

 

Hmm, well I guess if that's what they are calling it, it must be. I've never seen anodizing peel off like a paint though. A friend of mine has a single Lamy Al-Star - his only fountain pen. It is the L.E. from 2015, that copper orange color. He uses it every day and isn't concerned at all with the wear on it. The finish is literally peeling off the ends of it, the way paint on a car would. What is left behind is stark silver - the underlying aluminum. I wasn't aware that anodizing could come off like that and assumed the finish Lamy uses involved some kind of clear coat.

[sirgilbert357]

3 hours ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

That's the problem. YOU don't get to decide what I think is unreasonable.

I get to decide that. 

You may disagree with what I think, and you can state why YOU think that it IS reasonable/ethical. But that is all.

Greedy, unethical, unreasonable, these are opinions. They can be more or less objective/fact based, but they are still opinions. Just because yours differs from mine does not invalidate mine, nor does mine invalidate yours.

 

Yeah, and on the brown 2000, it in my opinion crosses DEEPLY into "unreasonable" and borders on "unethical"

 

 

But why?

 

What moral code are they violating? Why doesn't Lamy get to decide what their efforts are worth?? You can apply this to literally any area of life. Should a painter never sell their work for more than it cost to produce it? What about their time and effort? What if they only ever paint ONE of that kind? Should every Lamborghini cost the same as a Honda Accord?

 

Do you also feel that way about the GvFC Pen of the Year editions that sell for multi-thousands of dollars?? What about the special edition Mont Blancs?

 

Are there other gold nib piston filler pens going for 400+ dollars? You bet there are. Some have argued that Lamy price the regular L2K too low compared to it's competitors. You can find steel nib, acrylic pens (piston fillers/eyedroppers/cartridge converter, you pick) made from "easy to produce" acrylic (compared to Makrolon) for over 200 bucks. Why is the L2K so CHEAP??

 

This is simply the law of supply and demand. The world may only ever have 3300 copies of this pen. Would you still say the MSRP is unfair if they tripled in value on the secondary market as soon as they sell out from authorized distributors? What if they are worth 2,000 dollars in 10 years? Is the MSRP still a bad deal?

 

I'll mention it again: the 2013 Pelikan M800 Tortoise limited edition is between 1,200 and 2,000 dollars right now. Back when it was being sold new for 400 +/- (I don't know the actual street price from 2013, I'm just throwing a reasonable number out there given Pelikan's pricing history), I probably would have thought it was a bit expensive. But if I knew then what I know now, I'd have bought as many as I could afford!!!

 

I don't mean to argue, not at all...I'm just offering counterpoints that may help some folks process this. I'm a bit "un-emotional" about the whole thing though...that might not be everyone's approach. But I would urge caution when you start accusing a company of immoral behavior. There are many, many moral systems out there. Who says your view is the "right" one? I see nothing illegal or immoral about asking a high price for a limited edition pen. Lamy don't need to justify the price to us. If the market responds by refusing to buy the pen, Lamy will have to adjust accordingly. But if it sells out...they were onto something now weren't they?

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

1 hour ago, sirgilbert357 said:

 

But why?

 

What moral code are they violating? Why doesn't Lamy get to decide what their efforts are worth?? You can apply this to literally any area of life. Should a painter never sell their work for more than it cost to produce it? What about their time and effort? What if they only ever paint ONE of that kind? Should every Lamborghini cost the same as a Honda Accord?

 

Because that is my right as a consumer. 

What moral code are they breaking? Mine; the one that says a 200% markup for a mere colour change is a rip off.

Yeah, Lamy can "decide" all they want what their "efforts" are worth, and I can decide that a 200% markup simply for changing the colour is a flat out rip off.

And yes, I CAN (and DO) apply this to many things in life! Ink Jet Printer ink costs (apparently) 23 CENTS to make a cartridge. They sell it to you at 60$... it's a rip off! It's also why I don't own an inkjet printer.

Imagine if Honda tripled the price of the Accord, just so you could have it painted a "limited" colour... 

I don't think many people would question calling that a rip off.

Especially since in this case, "limited" is limited only by the company choosing to create artificial scarcity.

 

1 hour ago, sirgilbert357 said:

Are there other gold nib piston filler pens going for 400+ dollars? You bet there are. Some have argued that Lamy price the regular L2K too low compared to it's competitors. You can find steel nib, acrylic pens (piston fillers/eyedroppers/cartridge converter, you pick) made from "easy to produce" acrylic (compared to Makrolon) for over 200 bucks. Why is the L2K so CHEAP??

It likely is priced cheaper than other brands would sell it at. In fact, I believe that's a large part of why it has such a cult following and why it continues to be made now, 50 years after it's creation. It's very well priced for what it is. If they jacked the price to 400$ I bet it's sales would crash compared to current numbers and it would become yet another "halo" product that almost no one buys. It would also severely damage Lamy's image as they would appear greedy for doing so. So instead, they leave it reasonably priced which (clearly) allows them a comfortable profit margin and boosts their brand, and the good will towards that brand. I mean, go look at the "what should my first gold nib pen be" threads... the 2000 is always in the list, because it's well priced. If it was 400$ it wouldn't be in the list anymore.

 

1 hour ago, sirgilbert357 said:

This is simply the law of supply and demand. The world may only ever have 3300 copies of this pen. Would you still say the MSRP is unfair if they tripled in value on the secondary market as soon as they sell out from authorized distributors? What if they are worth 2,000 dollars in 10 years? Is the MSRP still a bad deal?

 

I'll mention it again: the 2013 Pelikan M800 Tortoise limited edition is between 1,200 and 2,000 dollars right now. Back when it was being sold new for 400 +/- (I don't know the actual street price from 2013, I'm just throwing a reasonable number out there given Pelikan's pricing history), I probably would have thought it was a bit expensive. But if I knew then what I know now, I'd have bought as many as I could afford!!!

 

What it's worth on the secondary market has little to no relation on what it's initial MSRP is, at least when limited quantities are at play.

Take the 2002 SE Parker 51. By all accounts this was a badly made pen (hoods cracked over and over again) from everything I've read, if you own one, DON'T USE IT!! and yet, they sell for 400-500$! 500 bucks... for a pen you CAN'T USE!?

That is just injection molded plastic?! The secondary market is it's own world, completely divorced from the primary/msrp market.

The best reason to buy an over priced pen (as given in your example) would be to hedge your bet that the price on the secondary market will be stupid high, and then sell that pen at the stupid price and make a tidy profit. Which is exactly what I think will happen with the Brown 2000. The same as happened to the blue one.

But that doesn't mean it was well priced in the first place. It just means that its desirability outstripped its availability.

 

1 hour ago, sirgilbert357 said:

I don't mean to argue, not at all...I'm just offering counterpoints that may help some folks process this. I'm a bit "un-emotional" about the whole thing though...that might not be everyone's approach. But I would urge caution when you start accusing a company of immoral behavior. There are many, many moral systems out there. Who says your view is the "right" one? I see nothing illegal or immoral about asking a high price for a limited edition pen. Lamy don't need to justify the price to us. If the market responds by refusing to buy the pen, Lamy will have to adjust accordingly. But if it sells out...they were onto something now weren't they?

I'd be willing to bet that there is not a single person on this forum who has not at some point in their lives seen the price of an item and said "WTH? that's a total rip off!" And that's what I'm saying the Brown LE 2000 is: A total rip off.

If anyone here wants to insist that they have NEVER said something was a total rip off, then I have a 2020 Parker Flighter Jotter Ballpoint that I would like to sell you. I insist this one is special, there is only one of them. It is unique from all the others in that this one is/was owned by me! I'm only asking $300USD for it. Compared to a brown LE 2000, that's a freaking bargain! Also, I have this bridge to sell...

 

Now as to what Is immoral that is a personal judgement. You said yourself there are "many, many moral systems out there".

Many people consider eating meat to be immoral. Many don't. But no one goes around "cautioning" people about voicing those opinions. They just shrug and say "well, that's just like... your opinion man"... 

Who says I'm right? no one. this is just what I believe. you are free to disagree

Who said those who agree with (or disagree with) eating meat are right?

That's their prerogative. It's their moral choice, as long as they don't try and forcibly take that choice from anyone else.

I never claimed I was "right" and people who want to buy it are "wrong"

 

Lets say Lamy sold this pen at $10 000, would you then think it was a rip off?

How about at $100 000?...a million? How much of a profit margin before you personally think they are taking consumers for a ride and just seeing what they can get away with?

I happen to think that a 200% markup for changing the colour and including a 5$ notebook is outrageous.

And judging by some of the responses here, I'm not alone.

 

Will it sell out? Yes, obviously. Because so many people have the disposable income that if it was 1000$ they would STILL buy it. That's why they are only making 3300 of them. They know that if they made enough that anyone who wanted one could have one (like the black one), that there is no way they could triple the price over the black 2000. This is a product they are making in order to have production costs be close to (or the same as) the current production costs of a product (the black 2000), but gives them an excuse to triple the price. Thereby skyrocketing their profit margins. Just think; the people who make black 2000s will spend maybe a few weeks making brown ones. Lamy will pay those people the same amount to make brown ones as they do to make black ones. But Lamy will charge YOU three times as much for the brown one as for the black one. 

Have no illusion: they are not doing this because they want fans to be happy. The are doing this for the same reason most businesses do most things: money.  This is a quick and relatively easy way to make a butt ton more money on a pre-existing product. If Lamy thought they could get away with suddenly jacking the black 2000's price to 700$, they would. But they know they can't, so instead they do this.

 

I think most MBs are a rip off. MB and their "precious resin" aka plastic.

It's why even if I had the money for a MB (if I sold my Flighter (set) 51 and DJ 51 and my first year snorkels and my Triumph snorkel I could reasonably afford a MB) I still wouldn't. Because I don't think a plastic pen is worth over 1000$ just because it has a white star on it. I don't buy into MB's lifestyle marketing (just like I don't buy into Supreme's lifestyle marketing) But at the same time, PT Barnum said it right: "there's a sucker born every minute." I guess someone has to take their money. It just won't be mine on this pen.

 

[sirgilbert357]

37 minutes ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

Because that is my right as a consumer. 

What moral code are they breaking? Mine; the one that says a 200% markup for a mere colour change is a rip off.

Yeah, Lamy can "decide" all they want what their "efforts" are worth, and I can decide that a 200% markup simply for changing the colour is a flat out rip off.

And yes, I CAN (and DO) apply this to many things in life! Ink Jet Printer ink costs (apparently) 23 CENTS to make a cartridge. They sell it to you at 60$... it's a rip off! It's also why I don't own an inkjet printer.

Imagine if Honda tripled the price of the Accord, just so you could have it painted a "limited" colour... 

I don't think many people would question calling that a rip off.

Especially since in this case, "limited" is limited only by the company choosing to create artificial scarcity.

 

It likely is priced cheaper than other brands would sell it at. In fact, I believe that's a large part of why it has such a cult following and why it continues to be made now, 50 years after it's creation. It's very well priced for what it is. If they jacked the price to 400$ I bet it's sales would crash compared to current numbers and it would become yet another "halo" product that almost no one buys. It would also severely damage Lamy's image as they would appear greedy for doing so. So instead, they leave it reasonably priced which (clearly) allows them a comfortable profit margin and boosts their brand, and the good will towards that brand. I mean, go look at the "what should my first gold nib pen be" threads... the 2000 is always in the list, because it's well priced. If it was 400$ it wouldn't be in the list anymore.

 

What it's worth on the secondary market has little to no relation on what it's initial MSRP is, at least when limited quantities are at play.

Take the 2002 SE Parker 51. By all accounts this was a badly made pen (hoods cracked over and over again) from everything I've read, if you own one, DON'T USE IT!! and yet, they sell for 400-500$! 500 bucks... for a pen you CAN'T USE!?

That is just injection molded plastic?! The secondary market is it's own world, completely divorced from the primary/msrp market.

The best reason to buy an over priced pen (as given in your example) would be to hedge your bet that the price on the secondary market will be stupid high, and then sell that pen at the stupid price and make a tidy profit. Which is exactly what I think will happen with the Brown 2000. The same as happened to the blue one.

But that doesn't mean it was well priced in the first place. It just means that its desirability outstripped its availability.

 

I'd be willing to bet that there is not a single person on this forum who has not at some point in their lives seen the price of an item and said "WTH? that's a total rip off!" And that's what I'm saying the Brown LE 2000 is: A total rip off.

If anyone here wants to insist that they have NEVER said something was a total rip off, then I have a 2020 Parker Flighter Jotter Ballpoint that I would like to sell you. I insist this one is special, there is only one of them. It is unique from all the others in that this one is/was owned by me! I'm only asking $300USD for it. Compared to a brown LE 2000, that's a freaking bargain! Also, I have this bridge to sell...

 

Now as to what Is immoral that is a personal judgement. You said yourself there are "many, many moral systems out there".

Many people consider eating meat to be immoral. Many don't. But no one goes around "cautioning" people about voicing those opinions. They just shrug and say "well, that's just like... your opinion man"... 

Who says I'm right? no one. this is just what I believe. you are free to disagree

Who said those who agree with (or disagree with) eating meat are right?

That's their prerogative. It's their moral choice, as long as they don't try and forcibly take that choice from anyone else.

I never claimed I was "right" and people who want to buy it are "wrong"

 

Lets say Lamy sold this pen at $10 000, would you then think it was a rip off?

How about at $100 000?...a million? How much of a profit margin before you personally think they are taking consumers for a ride and just seeing what they can get away with?

I happen to think that a 200% markup for changing the colour and including a 5$ notebook is outrageous.

And judging by some of the responses here, I'm not alone.

 

Will it sell out? Yes, obviously. Because so many people have the disposable income that if it was 1000$ they would STILL buy it. That's why they are only making 3300 of them. They know that if they made enough that anyone who wanted one could have one (like the black one), that there is no way they could triple the price over the black 2000. This is a product they are making in order to have production costs be close to (or the same as) the current production costs of a product (the black 2000), but gives them an excuse to triple the price. Thereby skyrocketing their profit margins. Just think; the people who make black 2000s will spend maybe a few weeks making brown ones. Lamy will pay those people the same amount to make brown ones as they do to make black ones. But Lamy will charge YOU three times as much for the brown one as for the black one. 

Have no illusion: they are not doing this because they want fans to be happy. The are doing this for the same reason most businesses do most things: money.  This is a quick and relatively easy way to make a butt ton more money on a pre-existing product. If Lamy thought they could get away with suddenly jacking the black 2000's price to 700$, they would. But they know they can't, so instead they do this.

 

I think most MBs are a rip off. MB and their "precious resin" aka plastic.

It's why even if I had the money for a MB (if I sold my Flighter (set) 51 and DJ 51 and my first year snorkels and my Triumph snorkel I could reasonably afford a MB) I still wouldn't. Because I don't think a plastic pen is worth over 1000$ just because it has a white star on it. I don't buy into MB's lifestyle marketing (just like I don't buy into Supreme's lifestyle marketing) But at the same time, PT Barnum said it right: "there's a sucker born every minute." I guess someone has to take their money. It just won't be mine on this pen.

 

 

I just don't feel like multi-quoting this one so I can respond to each point. Much more could be said here...but, I'll just say this:

 

Of course each person will have an opinion on this. That's fine. Ranting about how offended you are at the asking price is a bit like stomping your foot at the Ferrari dealer and asking why their cars have to cost so much. Ferrari can't help that you don't have the money to afford their cars.

 

Lamy priced their pen where they thought it would sell. And it will. The secondary market absolutely matters though. If this pen showed up on the secondary market for LESS than the MSRP, then that is relevant. It might indicate to Lamy that they got lucky to sell them at that price and perhaps the next one they do wouldn't fare as well. Limited Editions that don't hold their resale value are a data point that the manufacturer would be foolish to ignore. Same with unfavorable reviews of a new pen when it is launched...

 

You ask at what price I feel the pen is a rip off...but I ask you this: what profit margin is acceptable? I personally don't feel there should ever be a limit to profit margin. If you follow car auctions, you can see some downright amazing sums being paid for old cars that will likely never even be driven. It's common to see something sell for MILLIONS of dollars that may not have even cost 50k when new. Is that OK? If so, why? You want to put a subjective limit on what is morally acceptable for profit -- should that only apply to a company? Why not secondary sales too? Why should that guy get to sell his 1950 Ford for 2.3 million when all he paid for it was 22k? No different than a company doing it. Maybe he is a one man company...is all of that immoral too? The buyer WANTS the car and has the money...

 

Then when you start your own business and invest your life savings into it, and all your blood, sweat and tears...and it's how you put food on the table for your wife and three kids...what will you say to the person that rants you are immoral because your product is selling for double what THEY think is acceptable?

[arcfide]

1 hour ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

Have no illusion: they are not doing this because they want fans to be happy. The are doing this for the same reason most businesses do most things: money.

 

And there's the rub. A company does not make money from unhappy customers in a free market. They only get money by giving something more back to the customer, and each customer gets to decide individually what is "more" to them. 

[A Smug Dill]

4 hours ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

Especially since in this case, "limited" is limited only by the company choosing to create artificial scarcity.

 

‘Artificial scarcity’, levelled as an accusation of greed or unconscionableness against commercial production and supply, is disingenuous and hypocritical at worst, and sheer nonsense at best, if all it really means is that the supply side has made a conscious (cf. artificial) decision to produce, or otherwise make available to consumers, a volume that is below commercial demand in the market. Demand is neither a scalar number — such that the world, or a particular society, or collective of would-be consumers of a product would need or want, or could do with, N units of it in an indefinite time-frame (or for all time) — nor a constant rate (e.g. N units per month) independent of price. Furthermore, all production by human endeavour is by definition artificial, and the output is necessarily finite; so someone must make conscious decisions on the capacity when implementing a production capability, and on the volume of actual production (either as a one-off run, or continual operation). Those decisions are never up to, and in my opinion should never be up to, the demand side of the market to dictate; and it need not be consulted (out of ‘respect’? You'd have to be joking) on either an assumption or the pretence that complete satisfaction of the consumer collective is an inherent objective of commercial production.

 

With finiteness of supply comes the interplay between demand and supply to determine market price; and, for commercial trade, there will almost inevitably be unsatisfied/latent demand that exist at a lower price. Thus, ‘artificial scarcity’ simply always exists; and it's as artificial as the individual consumer's budget, or price he/she is willing to pay for a product. Choosing not to do extra paid work (perhaps to spend more time with family, or to enjoy life, or to protect one's health and wellbeing) to increase one's spending power is ‘artificial’. Choosing not to forgo higher-priced ingredients in meal preparation for the family, or giving birthday or Christmas presents, so as to be able to better afford one's toys and tools is ‘artificial’. Choosing not to deplete one's savings and/or take on some financial risk, in the name of pursuing immediate gratification, is ‘artificial‘ — every bit as ‘artificial’ as the commercial supply side's business management decisions.

 

So, either the accuser hasn't thought that through clearly (and therefore spouts sheer nonsense), or it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, to throw the term ‘artificial scarcity’ around. Note I'm not denying that some people genuinely feel strongly, perhaps strongly aggrieved, about supply not meeting demand for something they want or need; but it doesn't make them right or give them the moral high ground, and as far as I'm concerned, gives them no entitlement to a sympathetic response (instead of, say, “Who cares?”).

 

I think it's fair to say that Lamy over-produced the Black Amber limited edition of the Lamy 2000 several years back, and ended up with supply exceeding demand — at the asking price; no ‘artificial scarcity’ there! I'm sure if it was offered at a lower price — exactly what discount campaigns and closeout sales to clear stock are all about — or even the same price as the regular version, demand would be higher because some may choose it out of motivation for variety if nothing else; but that's not a reasonable way to match supply to demand when a business is planning a commercial product. Of course Lamy had to learn from that mistake, and reduce total production volume for future limited edition products of the same mould.

 

If Lamy chose not to produce and offer limited editions, even though it has the capability to do so, then that would equally be a case ‘artificial scarcity’, and you the consumer would still have no say and even less choice; you simply wouldn't be able to have a different colour of the pen model for love or money.

 

Begrudging that there is now a choice to be made, when there was none before, and that you can see your peers (“with money”) making the choice and accepting the price — and hence the objective and absolute cost to themselves — even though you yourself are unwilling to do so (and consider yourself more principled for it?) is petty.

 

Nobody here is trying to drive up the price of the basic, reliable Lamy 2000 Makrolon in black that self-styled loyal fans so love and/or willingly promote to other fountain pen users and hobbyists; but that having a choice in different colours is a non-trivial value-add, and not one they're somehow entitled to or should be rewarded with. Being peeved off at not being offered that value-add, either free of charge or at a painless level of out-of-pocket expense, is all on them, and not a reason for their opinion(s) on pricing and availability of limited editions to hold sway. If you love the basic black version, and even acknowledge that the pricing is part of that, then stick with just that! How you feel about not being given a choice of colour, how that ‘artificial’ limitation (on both Lamy's part due its retail pricing, and yours because you won't willingly pay the asking price) impacts on you, is all personal drama.

 

4 hours ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

Have no illusion: they are not doing this because they want fans to be happy. The are doing this for the same reason most businesses do most things: money.

 

There is absolutely no reason why self-styled fans, or any other consumer, ought to have any say or sway on how some other entity's private resources, assets, capabilities and efforts are to be used, when they have not traded to have their wants catered to or earned what is, by any other name, service by that other entity. Coexistence does not create an obligation to share and/or spread the benefits that can arise from what is privately held by separate parties.

 

If you want to write yourself off the group of ‘fans’ because that is ultimately what all that outrage is about — that Lamy is not servicing you beyond continuing to offer an excellent product in the Lamy 2000 Makrolon without raising prices, and not availing you of its corporate capabilities — that's perfectly fine. I hope Lamy will easily find more fans in the dynamic landscape of the writing instrument markets to fill that ‘void’; and I hope you find something else that isn't Lamy to satisfy that unrequited love.

[maclink]

@A Smug Dill Great missive.  I enjoyed reading it and agree even though I hadn't thought of some of what you wrote until I read it. 

[IThinkIHaveAProblem]

3 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

‘Artificial scarcity’, levelled as an accusation of greed or unconscionableness against commercial production and supply, is disingenuous and hypocritical at worst, and sheer nonsense at best, if all it really means is that the supply side has made a conscious (cf. artificial) decision to produce, or otherwise make available to consumers, a volume that is below commercial demand in the market. Demand is neither a scalar number — such that the world, or a particular society, or collective of would-be consumers of a product would need or want, or could do with, N units of it in an indefinite time-frame (or for all time) — nor a constant rate (e.g. N units per month) independent of price. Furthermore, all production by human endeavour is by definition artificial, and the output is necessarily finite; so someone must make conscious decisions on the capacity when implementing a production capability, and on the volume of actual production (either as a one-off run, or continual operation). Those decisions are never up to, and in my opinion should never be up to, the demand side of the market to dictate; and it need not be consulted (out of ‘respect’? You'd have to be joking) on either an assumption or the pretence that complete satisfaction of the consumer collective is an inherent objective of commercial production.

 

With finiteness of supply comes the interplay between demand and supply to determine market price; and, for commercial trade, there will almost inevitably be unsatisfied/latent demand that exist at a lower price. Thus, ‘artificial scarcity’ simply always exists; and it's as artificial as the individual consumer's budget, or price he/she is willing to pay for a product. Choosing not to do extra paid work (perhaps to spend more time with family, or to enjoy life, or to protect one's health and wellbeing) to increase one's spending power is ‘artificial’. Choosing not to forgo higher-priced ingredients in meal preparation for the family, or giving birthday or Christmas presents, so as to be able to better afford one's toys and tools is ‘artificial’. Choosing not to deplete one's savings and/or take on some financial risk, in the name of pursuing immediate gratification, is ‘artificial‘ — every bit as ‘artificial’ as the commercial supply side's business management decisions.

 

So, either the accuser hasn't thought that through clearly (and therefore spouts sheer nonsense), or it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, to throw the term ‘artificial scarcity’ around. Note I'm not denying that some people genuinely feel strongly, perhaps strongly aggrieved, about supply not meeting demand for something they want or need; but it doesn't make them right or give them the moral high ground, and as far as I'm concerned, gives them no entitlement to a sympathetic response (instead of, say, “Who cares?”).

 

I think it's fair to say that Lamy over-produced the Black Amber limited edition of the Lamy 2000 several years back, and ended up with supply exceeding demand — at the asking price; no ‘artificial scarcity’ there! I'm sure if it was offered at a lower price — exactly what discount campaigns and closeout sales to clear stock are all about — or even the same price as the regular version, demand would be higher because some may choose it out of motivation for variety if nothing else; but that's not a reasonable way to match supply to demand when a business is planning a commercial product. Of course Lamy had to learn from that mistake, and reduce total production volume for future limited edition products of the same mould.

 

If Lamy chose not to produce and offer limited editions, even though it has the capability to do so, then that would equally be a case ‘artificial scarcity’, and you the consumer would still have no say and even less choice; you simply wouldn't be able to have a different colour of the pen model for love or money.

 

Begrudging that there is now a choice to be made, when there was none before, and that you can see your peers (“with money”) making the choice and accepting the price — and hence the objective and absolute cost to themselves — even though you yourself are unwilling to do so (and consider yourself more principled for it?) is petty.

 

Nobody here is trying to drive up the price of the basic, reliable Lamy 2000 Makrolon in black that self-styled loyal fans so love and/or willingly promote to other fountain pen users and hobbyists; but that having a choice in different colours is a non-trivial value-add, and not one they're somehow entitled to or should be rewarded with. Being peeved off at not being offered that value-add, either free of charge or at a painless level of out-of-pocket expense, is all on them, and not a reason for their opinion(s) on pricing and availability of limited editions to hold sway. If you love the basic black version, and even acknowledge that the pricing is part of that, then stick with just that! How you feel about not being given a choice of colour, how that ‘artificial’ limitation (on both Lamy's part due its retail pricing, and yours because you won't willingly pay the asking price) impacts on you, is all personal drama.

 

 

There is absolutely no reason why self-styled fans, or any other consumer, ought to have any say or sway on how some other entity's private resources, assets, capabilities and efforts are to be used, when they have not traded to have their wants catered to or earned what is, by any other name, service by that other entity. Coexistence does not create an obligation to share and/or spread the benefits that can arise from what is privately held by separate parties.

 

If you want to write yourself off the group of ‘fans’ because that is ultimately what all that outrage is about — that Lamy is not servicing you beyond continuing to offer an excellent product in the Lamy 2000 Makrolon without raising prices, and not availing you of its corporate capabilities — that's perfectly fine. I hope Lamy will easily find more fans in the dynamic landscape of the writing instrument markets to fill that ‘void’; and I hope you find something else that isn't Lamy to satisfy that unrequited love.

This was the single longest winded way of saying “if you don’t like it shut the ef up” ever

 

 and yes, purposely making less than they know they could sell so they can charge more is the very definition of artificial scarcity. 
 

https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/artificial-scarcity/85993

 

it’s the very way all “limited editions” work. But especially those based on current production products. 

and yes as a human i am still allowed to be peeved off by it. In fact I’m still allowed to be peeved off by anything i want to be. Just like all of you seem quite triggered that I’m peeved off by lamy’s pricing. I CAN afford a brown one. But i won’t even try. I find the pricing predatory, exploitative and total bs. And despite what smug people think, I’m still allowed to feel that way. 

[A Smug Dill]

33 minutes ago, IThinkIHaveAProblem said:

And despite what smug people think, I’m still allowed to feel that way. 

 

Of course you're allowed to feel that way; knock yourself out with ire, if you insist. What I'm saying, in the open and to our peers, is that the problem lies with you, not Lamy, if you feel that way. I don't feel that way and, from the other replies from some fellow forum members and Lamy users, they don't feel that way. I don't know whether you want others to share your sentiment, and that's OK, I don't need to know. I'd rather focus on convincing them they don't have to feel that way, irrespective of whether they sympathise, and that there is no moral high ground to claim in feeling that way.

 

I don't think the brown Lamy 2000 limited edition is worth the asking price. I've decided not to buy one myself. It doesn't make me angry or disappointed at all that I don't gain anything — not profit, not satisfaction — from this limited edition release; and it's perfectly OK, from my point of view, for any particular self-styled “loyal fan” to not gain anything from it, while up to 3300 other Lamy customers (however else they identify) may get some enjoyment, pride of ownership and/or resale profit out of it. Nobody except Lamy is at risk of losing either money or their trusty writing instruments — namely the Lamy 2000 variants they already have, or have been using — from this; and if anyone is losing sleep over this, it's neither an affliction of Lamy's making nor one for others to share.