Loss of value of limited edition rifle

This has always been nothing more than Remington Marketing ploy to sell rifles each year!
 
220 said:
This has always been nothing more than Remington Marketing ploy to sell rifles each year!
Click to expand...

Maybe..... but It’s nice that Remington makes an effort to chamber some less common chamberings in the process.

Can’t say the same for many other manufacturers.
 
guntech said:
'Just a Remington' will hold it's value better than a $15000 Custom... the custom can easily go down in value $5000, the 700 only down a few hundred.

If the rifle was still in the box with the original paperwork, it would be worth more in 40 or 50 years to a collector.
Click to expand...

In his wildest dreams, if he is still alive 40 or 50 years from now, would the gun double in value?? FS
 
Fassteel said:
In his wildest dreams, if he is still alive 40 or 50 years from now, would the gun double in value?? FS
Click to expand...

Well, in 1988 when Remington produced the M700 classic in 35 Whelen, it sold for around $450.

30 years later I’ve sold 3 of them now in excellent used condition for over $1000. So I’d say a doubling in value (even used) is quite likely.
 
GMC403 said:
Well, in 1988 when Remington produced the M700 classic in 35 Whelen, it sold for around $450.

30 years later I’ve sold 3 of them now in excellent used condition for over $1000. So I’d say a doubling in value (even used) is quite likely.
Click to expand...

That's not really doubling in value when you consider the decrease in purchasing power of the dollar over the same time period. The dollar is a very elastic ruler to measure and a poor measure of value.

In 1988 at $450 CAD, Your M700 would have cost 59 ounces of silver.
Today, assuming a value of $1000 CAD, its worth only 49.5 ounces of silver.

Certainly held its value well compared to other 30 year old commodities, but certainly did not double in value.
 
Cameron SS said:
That's not really doubling in value when you consider the decrease in purchasing power of the dollar over the same time period. The dollar is a very elastic ruler to measure and a poor measure of value.

In 1988 at $450 CAD, Your M700 would have cost 59 ounces of silver.
Today, assuming a value of $1000 CAD, its worth only 49.5 ounces of silver.

Certainly held its value well compared to other 30 year old commodities, but certainly did not double in value.
Click to expand...

Oki doki
 
GMC403 said:
Well, in 1988 when Remington produced the M700 classic in 35 Whelen, it sold for around $450.

30 years later I’ve sold 3 of them now in excellent used condition for over $1000. So I’d say a doubling in value (even used) is quite likely.
Click to expand...

If you consider inflation (Which varies considerably depending on which year you look at between '88 and now, but say you use 2.5% as an average), wouldn't that gun today be worth very close to what it sold for in '88? Seems like a bit of a burden to sit on something for 30 years for such a seemingly insignificant gain...

Anyways, it's a Rem 700, they're not exactly uncommon. I'd shoot it.
 
Bought a Winchester 22 low wall last summer brand new for a great price thinking I can keep it and sell it down the road for a profit as I'm not a fan of shooting 22 anyway. It sat in my safe for 4 months before I said the hell with it and traded it at my LGS for something I was actually gonna use. Still made $300 on the rifle however.
 
Dogleg said:
Shoot it, it's just a gun not the Mona Lisa.
Click to expand...

Some said it was a collector item, if that information comes from the manufacture, guest what it's not a collector item it was just more expensive because the manufacture sold you a bill of goods and a good story.
 
guntech said:
That's one ugly scope... a good looking rifle as that is, it deserves a smaller Leupold and lower rings...
Click to expand...

The scope is a Zeiss 3x12 x 50 Victory, top-of-the-line made in Germany. I picked it out of a line of Zeiss, Leupold, Swarovski, and a couple of other high-dollar optics. It had the clearest, brightest image and the best eye relief of the bunch. Ironically, the BBR that I have hunted with wears a Leupold VX-3. If the Jack O'Connor rifle goes hunting, by me, with my somewhat challenged eyes, it'll be wearing the Zeiss scope. Although I agree that from an esthetic point of view a smaller objective scope would look good.
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
The scope is a Zeiss 3x12 x 50 Victory, top-of-the-line made in Germany. I picked it out of a line of Zeiss, Leupold, Swarovski, and a couple of other high-dollar optics. It had the clearest, brightest image and the best eye relief of the bunch. Ironically, the BBR that I have hunted with wears a Leupold VX-3. If the Jack O'Connor rifle goes hunting, by me, with my somewhat challenged eyes, it'll be wearing the Zeiss scope. Although I agree that from an esthetic point of view a smaller objective scope would look good.
Click to expand...

It's not a Zeiss Victory, it's a Conquest Duralyt. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a difference.
As for aesthetics, who cares. A scope on a hunting rifle is supposed to serve a purpose. While a gloss Leupold 2.5-8 might look "cleaner", it'll suck in comparison at last light.
 
bearkilr said:
It's not a Zeiss Victory, it's a Conquest Duralyt. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a difference.
As for aesthetics, who cares. A scope on a hunting rifle is supposed to serve a purpose. While a gloss Leupold 2.5-8 might look "cleaner", it'll suck in comparison at last light.
Click to expand...
Yup, my bad, it is a Zeiss Conquest Duralyt. And it was bought for the last five minutes of legal shooting time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom