Do "Sunk Costs" keep you from selling certain guns?

The economists say that the economic value of an article of trade is whatever the market will bear. Just because you put a lot of money into a gun does not mean that someone else cares a rat's rear or will pay you a penny more for it.

That said, I have two guns which, on a good day, would sell for maybe half of what I put into them. This is a major factor in my not wanting to part with them. Here they are:






Anyone else have a similar problem?

Not me. I'd hold for some reasons, but if I were motivated to sell, sunk costs wouldn't hold me back. Sunk costs are a fact of life, and clinging to them might cost me more, either in continued sunk expense, or by keeping me from moving on.

Click to expand...

You are correct, of course.
Maybe selling at a big loss is like an admission of doing something stupid.

The "economic" analysis is:

"If I did not have it and somebody offered it to me at that price would I buy it?"

Thus, other than sentimental value. If you would not buy for what you can sell it for you should sell it.

The 870 in my post only cost $250 or so at online auction, but adding the local FFL transfer fee, the 18.5" barrel that I added to replace the one that was too close to 18.0" for comfort, and the checkering and pad work by a gunsmith, I have about $600 in this gun, not to mention the hours I spent refinishing the wood myself.
I might be able to net $300 on a good day.
Would I buy it for $275 if it was offered to me? - Probably not. I bought it for $250 when I thought I would be keeping it as an all original California Highway Patrol surplus.
Therefore I should sell it, but it is hard to take the haircut.

The Model 37 cost $250, adding the cost to have it cut down to 18.5, the cost to have it professionaly cleaned and adjusted and the cost of the pad plus fitting, total about $550. Would I buy this for the $300 I might be able to net - probably.