Vinyl Records Cost Too Much . . . Or Do They?

[AudioNut]

I just played a classical stereo record that I purchased in 1960 and noticed that there was a price sticker on the cover, indicating that I had paid $5.98 for the thing. Not a lot of money, right?

Then I got to thinking about how much new LP's cost today . . . and I am stunned by how much they cost. The current "audiophile" re-masters and new issues often sell for $25 or $30 or even more and I'm absolutely certain that that is way too much money for me to spend on a record.

But then I decided to look at an inflation converter to see just how much the $5.98 that I'd paid in 1960 would be worth today . . . and to my surprise and amazement . . . .

That $5.98 I'd spent on a record in 1960 would be equivalent to $47.19 in 2013 dollars, and I sure as heck would never pay that much for some old record.

Maybe today's record costs aren't too bad after all.

(I made a similar post in the Classical Music thread, but thought there may be non-classical vinyl lovers that might be interested so I started a new thread)

.


My $47.19 LP from 1960:


____________

[bart]

I agree.
Music has become cheaper.
In the seventies, an LP costed around 7-8€ (300 Belgian Francs converted into €).
Now a CD often costs less than that!
Even new SACD's are not really expensive, compared with LP's back then.
High quality reissue LP's are expensive in Europe though, up to 90€ a piece, transport and customs included.

[MyPal]

MINT LP pressings from the 60s are generally high quality. A Jazz Japanese pressing will cost as much as a current remastered reissue in today's market.

A 180g/45rpm 2LP remastered reissue in gatefold is still great value at $50. I don't have a problem spending more if the transfer & production quality is there.

[ChrisAZ]

Also consider the following. Back in the day, records were being pumped out in high volume by the major houses - Columbia, RCA, etc. Now they are produced in low volume by boutique specialist manufacturers. The big houses also had large scale distribution and marketing available to them - I'm guessing the boutiques do not. So I'm guessing that the total cost to manufacture, market and distribute LP's on a per unit basis is greater today (even adjusted for inflation) than it was back in the 60's. Not bad for a niche product that frankly, based on my limited experience with vinyl in the last year, is of a higher standard generally than what I purchased in the 60s (I'm speaking here of commercial pop/rock LPs).

[Still-One]

Julian
They will continue to charge what the market will bear. When I can purchase virtually any CD for $10 to $15 and most hi-rez downloads for under $20 the price of re-issues are not in sync. Now the premium for current releases vinyl versus CD is only about ~$6.

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by AudioNut

That $5.98 I'd spent on a record in 1960 would be equivalent to $47.19 in 2013 dollars, and I sure as heck would never pay that much for some old record.

You wouldn't ????? considering you were purchasing Lp's in 1960 that qualifies you (and me) as an old fart, therefore I can think of Lp's from that era that are worth more than 47 bucks !

[-E-]

Vinyl is outrageously expensive, especially for limited pressings or out of print items. A friend just purchased Hell Freezes Over for a tad over $600 - and that is cheap.

IN-SAN-I-TY.

[62caddy]

I just purchased an unopened, out of print DG LP for $30.00 from Amazon. The same album on CD was something like $400- and it was "mint" used. Go figure.

[ChrisAZ]

Originally Posted by Vesuvius

Vinyl is outrageously expensive, especially for limited pressings or out of print items. A friend just purchased Hell Freezes Over for a tad over $600 - and that is cheap.

IN-SAN-I-TY.

There's a huge difference between LPs we want to purchase to just listen to and collectors items. Custom Leicas cost a fortune, but no one takes pictures with them. Chris

[jdandy]

Julian.......Back in 1969/1970 I was buying LP's at Tower Records in San Francisco for $2.99 all day long. The Tower Records store down by Fisherman's Wharf was open 24/7. I loved going down there at midnight to shop for music.

Your album purchase in 1960 for $5.98 made that LP an expensive piece of vinyl for the times. That's twice the price of vinyl LP's in 1970. If you apply your inflation calculator to $2.99 in 1970 you will come up with a totally different comparative price by today's standard. On top of that there was no shipping charges added to my Tower Record purchases and no real hassles or return shipping at my cost to replace warped or otherwise defective LP's.

It is my opinion that today's LP's from the Internet providers are overpriced even if there is no additional cost with returning defective LP's. My return rate is three in ten for defective pressings. That adds an additional 20% to the cost of purchase for the return postage, not taking into account the trip to the post office, the hassle of additional wait time, and general loss of excitement over the purchase. None of this spells a pleasurable buying experience that's even close to wondering around Tower Records in the middle of the night. I miss the old record stores. Portland, Oregon is fortunate to still have Music Millennium. I loved spending money in that store, too.