Custom Knifemaker Lee Williams' Anti-"Flipper" (Immediate Reseller) Stance

Richard S. said:
Fair means nothing to me when it comes to luxury items.

I don’t mind flippers because I’ve been able to acquire things I want through them. Same for auctions. I love them because the man with the biggest bank account gets what he wants.

Lotteries, fair share allotment, etc are annoying.

There is a happy medium where a man gets paid what his work is valued at by the market, and it discourages people trying to “flip” an item.

Look at sharps rifles. There are several people who have several orders in the cue for the specific purpose of selling those spots to impatient customers. Those people buying those spots are happy to pay a premium to cut down on the wait.
Click to expand...

One of the few reasons why I stopped buying from dealers who try to impose their world-order and morality on buyers (via lotteries, fair share allotment, and other gimmicks). Knives are "wants" and not "needs", and any attempt at moral-policing is stupid and will generate less-than-desirable outcome for all parties involved in that transaction, IMO.
 
PirateSeulb said:
I guess I didn't word my question right is there a point that the markup becomes unethical? If so what is that point to you and if not why to you is the markup removed from ethics? Do flipper not typically pray on peoples desires charging them an excessive markup due to scarcity and is that ethical? As I look at it the actions I am thinking of are the same as a ticket scalper they work to deplete the availability only to resell it at a profit that is typically excessive.
Click to expand...

Would you call someone who pays a very high markup for paintings unethical? By the way the discussion is headed on this thread, it appears all luxury items sold at higher inflated prices, including paintings, should be unethical, and all sellers of such items are flippers. Which is hilarious and silly to boot!
 
They sell the knife to the community. That’s helping. That means I can buy what I want using the power of my wallet instead of crossing my fingers
and hoping I get drawn.

Most of the altruism shown in these discussions across many hobbies is a facade.
 
Ford Motor Company is trying a new tack to discourage flippers from scooping up all of the new release of the 2019 Ford GT. They're making prospective buyers sign a two-year no-sale agreement. Seems fair. Ferrari limits sales of limited production runs to current owners. Seems not so fair.

The fact is no one will ever prevent collectors from flipping, or not using the product as intended. I'm always intrigued when high value knives show up for sale on BF that are years old and have never been used. My take is the makers bring it upon themselves by making knives that are either highly decorated or so finely finished no one in their right mind would actually use the thing in real world circumstances. So it's ultimate value is in trading. Not using.
 
Richard S. said:
They sell the knife to the community. That’s helping. That means I can buy what I want using the power of my wallet instead of crossing my fingers
and hoping I get drawn.

Most of the altruism shown in these discussions across many hobbies is a facade.
Click to expand...
I see it as taking advantage of the community. Why don't they sell with a modest markup they are trying to support the hobby?
 
marchone said:
I'm always intrigued when high value knives show up for sale on BF that are years old and have never been used. ... So it's ultimate value is in trading. Not using.
Click to expand...

No, a lot of collectors have safe queens as well as users. Especially for well off collectors buying valuable pieces second hand. Not too many people can afford to collect Loveless originals, and certainly some of them would love to use the snot out of them, but for many, the pleasure is in possessing, and likely few can afford use a $5,000-$10,000 knife to clear brush in the back 40.

danbot said:
I see it as taking advantage of the community. Why don't they sell with a modest markup they are trying to support the hobby?
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be much consensus on what constitutes a 'modest markup,' only that A) paying $225 for a Manix is ridiculous and B) so is flipping a knife at the table you won the lottery at before you even take possession of it.
 
madcap_magician said:
No, a lot of collectors have safe queens as well as users. Especially for well off collectors buying valuable pieces second hand. Not too many people can afford to collect Loveless originals, and certainly some of them would love to use the snot out of them, but for many, the pleasure is in possessing, and likely few can afford use a $5,000-$10,000 knife to clear brush in the back 40.
Click to expand...

You make my point so I don’t understand the need for a “no”.
 
danbot said:
I see it as taking advantage of the community. Why don't they sell with a modest markup they are trying to support the hobby?
Click to expand...

Would you sell your house at a modest markup (below market, to be clear), so someone else can enjoy the community? Even in the housing market, which can be considered a "need" than a "want", I don't see anyone selling their house for less, out of the goodness of their heart... not sure why different standards are applied here... ;-)
 
choombak said:
I do think they do contribute economically, just not intellectually. :)
Click to expand...
I tend to disagree. those sprint runs and lotto bought knives will sell with or without them. And they don't even pay taxes on their sales.
We certainly wouldn't be worse off without flippers.
 
choombak choombak I am posing questions and not specifically stating my view of it. I don't know the art world enough to even begin to touch on it but if there was a similar practice I would probably be critical of it.

I know some have said those objecting are doing so out of being butt hurt because they can't afford it, missed the opportunity, or disappointed for having to pay the flippers prices. I don't buy customers or high end production knives I drool over them but I can barely afford a $200 knife so most of these are out of my reach before they get flipped. The buyers do bear the most responsibility for curbing this action but makers and fellow enthusiast supporting those against it and calling out people who practice it also helps combat it. Vocalizing our disapproval isn't just about being hurt by the practice it is about fellowship and defending fellow consumers and protecting the makers from unjust criticisms.
 
marchone said:
You make my point so I don’t understand the need for a “no”.
Click to expand...

I suppose I wasn't really disagreeing with you except to the idea of the only purposes being either trading or using. There are plenty of people who are primarily collectors, whose collections don't often get traded or moved around. Wouldn't be a market for art knives at all without that, I think.
 
choombak said:
Would you sell your house at a modest markup (below market, to be clear), so someone else can enjoy the community? Even in the housing market, which can be considered a "need" than a "want", I don't see anyone selling their house for less, out of the goodness of their heart... not sure why different standards are applied here... ;-)
Click to expand...
Why would I sell my house "below market" if I wasn't forced to? Then a flipper would buy it.:rolleyes:
I would price my house within the market norms and then I would see what kind of offers came in.
 
marchone said:
Ford Motor Company is trying a new tack to discourage flippers from scooping up all of the new release of the 2019 Ford GT. They're making prospective buyers sign a two-year no-sale agreement. Seems fair. Ferrari limits sales of limited production runs to current owners. Seems not so fair.
Click to expand...
Ford had a rather well known application process for the new Ford GT where the company decided who could and couldn't purchase the car itself.
 
marchone said:
I'm always intrigued when high value knives show up for sale on BF that are years old and have never been used. My take is the makers bring it upon themselves by making knives that are either highly decorated or so finely finished no one in their right mind would actually use the thing in real world circumstances. So it's ultimate value is in trading. Not using.
Click to expand...

Either you enjoy and appreciate top end knives or you don't.
The fact that some like them and never use them does not mean that they are purchased for investment or trade. I hardly ever sell anything and a good chunk of my collection is over 20 years old. None have been used.

People want to own and appreciate beautiful things. What constitutes that beauty and how its presented is certainly very personal. But the fact that I buy engraved or embellished pieces and never use them does not mean that they were purchased for any other reason than they are beautiful to my eye.
 
PirateSeulb said:
choombak choombak I am posing questions and not specifically stating my view of it. I don't know the art world enough to even begin to touch on it but if there was a similar practice I would probably be critical of it.

I know some have said those objecting are doing so out of being butt hurt because they can't afford it, missed the opportunity, or disappointed for having to pay the flippers prices. I don't buy customers or high end production knives I drool over them but I can barely afford a $200 knife so most of these are out of my reach before they get flipped. The buyers do bear the most responsibility for curbing this action but makers and fellow enthusiast supporting those against it and calling out people who practice it also helps combat it. Vocalizing our disapproval isn't just about being hurt by the practice it is about fellowship and defending fellow consumers and protecting the makers from unjust criticisms.
Click to expand...

We all are friends here on this discussion, and taking an opposing point of view is perfectly fine, and desirable -- that is what keeps the discussion going and helps everyone understand different points of view. I am not pointing fingers or calling anyone names, just pouring in my ideas and thoughts (that are shaped by my experiences), and so are you. That's cool. :-)
 
choombak said:
We all are friends here on this discussion, and taking an opposing point of view is perfectly fine, and desirable -- that is what keeps the discussion going and helps everyone understand different points of view. I am not pointing fingers or calling anyone names, just pouring in my ideas and thoughts (that are shaped by my experiences), and so are you. That's cool. :)
Click to expand...

I will defend to the death your right to have your ridiculous small minded opinion!:D

Seriously......nice post.;)
 
choombak choombak I didn't take it to be pointing me or anyone out but I did want to be clear that the quoted post was a question asked to better understand the views of all but mostly of those who I don't agree with.
 
Richard S. said:
No, you’re not a thief. The seller has unrealistic expectations. The only compensation due to him is the cost of the item, unless there is a contract of some sort that the buyer signs saying he super promises to only use it as the maker wants it to be used. If he breaks that contract then the seller could pursue legal action. Yeah, that’s unrealistic too.
Click to expand...
You seem to be conflating ethics and legality. You don't need to commit a legally punishable offense to be fundamentally a thief.

It's interesting how this topic, both here and on other forums, so clearly delineates people into two groups:
  • law and order, letter of the law, free markets, dollar is king
  • right action, spirit of the law, fair dealing, friendship and art are king
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top