DVD-quality lessons (including tabs/sheet music) available for immediate viewing on any device.
Take your playing to the next level with the help of a local or online fiddle teacher.
Monthly newsletter includes free lessons, favorite member content, fiddle news and more.
Premier Sponsors
|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.fiddlehangout.com/archive/59734/2
Old Scratch - Posted - 02/19/2025: 18:26:26
This guy - Ezra Azmon - once asked to try my old $50 pawn shop fiddle (of course, $50 back then is like $60 now!). After a couple of minutes, he handed it back, with the pronouncement that, "It is a good violin for folk music - but not for Classical": youtube.com/watch?v=Tabfrn9DRAE
wrench13 - Posted - 02/19/2025: 20:01:19
Well obviously the player makes a fiddle sound good (or bad). Talented players can get a poor fiddle to sound decent. But the overall tone, thats what we are discussing, right? So do fiddles with thin sound and no body, typical of cheaply made instruments, make better 'fiddles' then ones with a richer, fuller tone? I saw a video the other day of a gourd type fiddle. The guy playing it was good and had good intonation and all, but the tone was so thin it was not pleasing. Just like banjo's and guitars and mandos, you want the best sounding instrument no matter what * . When I record and want multiple fiddle tracks, I use a different fiddle for each track, it really fattens up the sound, each lending its own unique tone to the recording.
* - except for whistles since apparently cheap, crappy ones are best.
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/20/2025: 06:15:19
Classical violinists need violins that can perform superbly all the way up the neck. Most traditional music players do not play extensively outside first position so they don't require the same violin performance.
When you watch classical players try violins, you'll notice often the first thing they try are the high positions on the G-string. Many instruments wash-out up there because they can't sustain volume or tone even when they sound fantastic in the first position. Same is true of the E-string. So if a fiddle can't perform well in the higher positions, it is justifiably dismissed by classical players, but these violins can be great for traditional music players.
In regards to Tommy Jarrell's fiddle, it was awful. Horrible. I love his playing but he would have sounded much better if he had had a decent fiddle. For those interested, you can see his fiddle here:
si.edu/object/tommy-jarrells-v...ah_606731
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/20/2025 06:16:01
Erockin - Posted - 02/20/2025: 07:05:14
I'm amazed at the price of some on both spectrums. $25.....$2,500...$25,000
I like to be in that $250 to be honest! But in the end, the same principles were used...so I think cheaper ones are the better deal for the buyer.
learn2turn - Posted - 02/20/2025: 09:01:41
One thing I have heard is in the Bluegrass world, cheaper laminated basses are preferred. Plucking rhythm in Bluegrass, sustain isn't needed. What is needed is a satisfying "THUNK". Cheaper laminated basses have more a thunk when plucked than higher quality solid wood instruments.
Erockin - Posted - 02/20/2025: 09:15:08
quote:
Originally posted by learn2turnOne thing I have heard is in the Bluegrass world, cheaper laminated basses are preferred. Plucking rhythm in Bluegrass, sustain isn't needed. What is needed is a satisfying "THUNK". Cheaper laminated basses have more a thunk when plucked than higher quality solid wood instruments.
I've recently inherited my wife's upright bass...it's a laminated bass made by Upton Bass out of Mystic CT. I wouldn't say it's cheap but it's the entry level bass. Many friends who own old Kay basses marvel over this bass and how well it sounds and plays. Here is a link uptonbass.com/instruments/ub-s...ble-bass/
pete_fiddle - Posted - 02/20/2025: 10:13:54
I have a decent fiddle (given to me! Probably 1500 quid or so), and i could obviously make it sound better by putting 150 quids worth of strings on,(every few months), and having it cleaned and set up by a reputable Luthier, (every year or so), having my bow rehaired, (every year or so), and taking a few grands worth of lessons by a good fiddler. And that's after 40 odd years of pub fiddlin.
But do i want to do that, and can i justify, or afford it? And who's gonna get the logs in in the mean time? or fix stuff around the place......etc...etc, while i pursue perfection to the determent of all else....
Nahh i'll just play the fiddle, if ,where, and when i want to. If folk like it they might bye me a pint, if they don't they'll kick me out. expensive orchestral instruments, strings, bows, and tuition etc, are for people who dedicate their whole lives (probably from about the age of 6 or so) to the music industry.
screecher - Posted - 02/20/2025: 10:17:49
I have at least one of every bluegrass instrument and my main fiddle is the one I paid the least for ($300). There are just so many old factory German violins out there compared to the number of old F-hole mandolins, dreadnought guitars, or 5 string banjos.
Add to that is that at least some old bluegrass fiddlers (I'm thinking Paul Warren but I'm sure there are others) played inexpensive factory fiddles and sounded great to my ears. So I've been less inclined to upgrade my fiddle even while I'm always looking for a deal on a Martin dreadnought (I would look at mandolins but they get pricey quick).
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/20/2025: 10:53:09
quote:
Originally posted by ErockinI'm amazed at the price of some on both spectrums. $25.....$2,500...$25,000
I like to be in that $250 to be honest! But in the end, the same principles were used...so I think cheaper ones are the better deal for the buyer.
I understand the desire for more easily attainable instruments. Dealers often lament the old days when you could buy a good old German violin for under $1000 and you could buy an excellent modern Italian for $5000. The reality is that the market has grown and the cost of living has pushed prices up higher for new makers, and there's no sign of that changing so far. That being said, violins are still one of the best ways to put money to work. There are so few products out there that will not only be around in 100 years, but will likely perform even better than when new.
I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean about the same principles being used. If by that you mean that violins at all levels are made with the same principles in mind, I would have to disagree. Every aspect is different, from the wood quality to the design, to the working method to the number of hands involved in making it, to the amount of attention to the inside and outside to the type of varnish used, to the fittings and strings chosen, even to the very reason for making them. Because so many corners are cut to keep prices low on cheap violins, it is detrimental to go too low in price, because you're either looking at very poorly made new instruments or at old instruments that have been badly damaged or repaired; neither will work well or hold value.
Cheap violins are more like new cars--as soon as you get out of the parking lot they'll never be worth what you paid in your lifetime. On the other hand, if you buy well, you can see incredible appreciation in value. You have to deal with the risk of buying a fake, but this is where expertise helps mitigate the problem. People who bought Vuillaumes and Scarampellas for the price of a small sports car (at the time) 50 years ago now have instruments they could trade for houses in many parts of the country, and they've had the benefit of being able to use them regularly and often make livings doing so. Prices at the lower end of the antique instrument market have jumped up a lot in the last few years, so even there, a lot of people are pleasantly surprised when they come in for updated insurance appraisals.
I think what provides the best value to a player will depend on that individual's intentions. If you're just looking for something solid to play and aren't worried about resale, you can find something that will suit that aim reasonably well in the $1000-$2000 range. If you hope to trade it in, you'll need to find something that won't make the shop want to hide behind the curtains when they see you coming. If you're looking for an investment, you need to look for something that has a good track record or try to buy a good maker's instruments before they jump up in value.
Erockin - Posted - 02/20/2025: 11:05:01
I wasn't here to debate it, nor am I in the Violin selling business. By principles, I should have stated, (wood, glue and tools) were used to make all the violins in the world. You can certainly tell a difference in a Cadillac Escalade and Honda Civic. Both were made of plastic, metal and glass...both do the same job. I understand that "rare" or "precious" materials go into the violin process but just by the visual aspect, most can't tell the difference between a 20k and a 2k...(most)
pete_fiddle - Posted - 02/20/2025: 11:09:22
Playable German fiddles where about 30 quid in the UK about 20 or 30 years ago, French could fetch a couple of hundred quid or so, and all Italian Violins where out of the range of any fiddler. And a fair orchestral instrument was about 7 grand upwards to the moon (and back).
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/20/2025: 13:24:07
Violins do not "jump up in value." They are poor investments. The require cash to maintain (cashflow negative) and are illiquid (hard, slow and expensive to sell).
A study of violin sales over time that tracked repeat sales of the same violins showed an average return on investment of 3.3% annually. David Fulton amassed one of the greatest collections of fine Cremonese instruments ever, and when he sold the instruments he reported an average annual return of 5.54%. Compare that to the average annual return of the S&P which has been 10.5% since 1957.
There are many good reasons to spend money to buy a fine violin that you love, but "as an investment" should not be one of them.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/20/2025 13:27:38
pete_fiddle - Posted - 02/20/2025: 13:43:00
LOL... Dealers used to take good instruments around the "Antique" fairs just to get on each others nerves. And pretend they got up earlier than the other dealers...I watched them doing it! Ha Ha ...it's a cut throat world.
imapicker2 - Posted - 02/20/2025: 14:23:00
What George said....again.
I like the old saying...."If you are selling ,It's a violin but if you are buying, it's a fiddle."
DougD - Posted - 02/20/2025: 14:38:43
The "sweet spot" between $2000 and $5000 may tend "to be attractive to everyone" in some markets and among some groups of people, but I wonder how many FHO members or those who enjoy jamming at places like Clifftop have instruments in that range. I suspect (and its just a suspicion) that many might be more in the "sub $1000" range.
Lonesome Fiddler - Posted - 02/20/2025: 16:09:21
Whenever I've gone to a music store or private party to test out a musical instrument, it seems that the instrument with the highest price tag was almost always the best one...or at least the one that most lit my fire. If I could swallow the price it was the one I walked away with. I've never felt remorse, either....at least since I made it into my thirties. What can I say? When it comes to music, my knees (or is it ears?) grow weak.
bacfire - Posted - 02/20/2025: 18:24:10
I have 7 or 8 fiddles in the "sub-$1000 range" but I don't really know what most of them are worth, since they were left to me, given to me, or bought many years ago.
I'd really like to have a better instrument that inspires me and would be willing to pay the price, but I don't trust my ear or abilities. Fiddles sound good to me one day and not-so-good the next, just as my playing sounds mediocre one day and terrible the next. With a weak knowledge of the violin market and an unreliable ear, I fear making a buying mistake in the $2-5k market and being stuck with a bunch of money (for me) in an instrument that I can't readily move and that pleases me no more than one of my current fiddles.
I do have a (formerly) nice 1975 Roth violin that I got in a honky-tonk for a stupid low price about 25 years ago, but it developed structural problems and I cheaped out on repairs. Now competent luthiers tell me it's not worth fixing right.
doryman - Posted - 02/20/2025: 18:30:17
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeHClassical violinists need violins that can perform superbly all the way up the neck. Most traditional music players do not play extensively outside first position so they don't require the same violin performance.
When you watch classical players try violins, you'll notice often the first thing they try are the high positions on the G-string. Many instruments wash-out up there because they can't sustain volume or tone even when they sound fantastic in the first position. Same is true of the E-string. So if a fiddle can't perform well in the higher positions, it is justifiably dismissed by classical players, but these violins can be great for traditional music players.
In regards to Tommy Jarrell's fiddle, it was awful. Horrible. I love his playing but he would have sounded much better if he had had a decent fiddle. For those interested, you can see his fiddle here:
si.edu/object/tommy-jarrells-v...ah_606731
I just took a look at that fiddle. I've never seen a fiddle with machine tuners like that!
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/20/2025: 18:44:33
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeHViolins do not "jump up in value." They are poor investments. The require cash to maintain (cashflow negative) and are illiquid (hard, slow and expensive to sell).
A study of violin sales over time that tracked repeat sales of the same violins showed an average return on investment of 3.3% annually. David Fulton amassed one of the greatest collections of fine Cremonese instruments ever, and when he sold the instruments he reported an average annual return of 5.54%. Compare that to the average annual return of the S&P which has been 10.5% since 1957.
There are many good reasons to spend money to buy a fine violin that you love, but "as an investment" should not be one of them.
I have to disagree with both of these arguments. There are trends in the violin market that cause fairly sudden runs in pricing. Often a maker who worked in a major shop but largely passed unnoticed will suddenly become valuable when an expert starts to show an interest in him and authenticates several examples. How many people were familiar with Mermillot 20 years ago? Now they're getting more attention and prices are rising quickly. Roths were selling for just over $10k a decade ago, and then one sold at auction for $20k and the prices immediately went up for other Roths. Sam Zygmuntowicz was getting about the same as his colleagues for his violins, and then one that had belonged to Isaac Stern sold at auction for $180k. In no time the starting price for the most basic of his shop instruments went to $60k.
The "studies" done on violin prices seem to mostly just follow auction prices. The returns on private sales are usually higher, and one must keep in mind that even a 5% return on a $10 million investment is no laughing matter. At the high end, because the prices are so high, commissions are adjusted to be reasonable, so nobody is making $5 million on a $10 million sale. But that's looking at the very top of the market, and that's not where most sales happen. In the lower end, the returns can often hit much higher levels. Prices for good French violins have been moving up a lot lately. It used to be easy to find a good JTL under $5000, but now I'm seeing mediocre examples selling for more than $5000.
No investment comes without some risk. Stocks don't come with any guarantees, and you can only hold them in a portfolio or sell them. It's too often overlooked in investment discussions that the use you get out of a violin is a dividend in itself, even if it's not monetary. And a violin can earn you money if you play it. Even if all you get is a portion of its value some day in the future, you've had the benefit of its use for all that time, and that should not be discounted. It's not all about the sale. A well chosen violin can help a player secure a job. I can't count the number of times customers have told me stories about a violin making or breaking the results of an audition for a music school or orchestra.
I would agree that one ought not think of a violin as a simple investment tool to earn cash, but I think my reasoning is different. Despite that, it has become more common lately for investors to do just that--now violins at the high end are starting to be purchased by consortiums of buyers who own shares in the instruments, and they all claim part of the profits when the next sale occurs. And I just know too many people who have made huge profits from the sales of their instruments to be willing to accept the premise that people actually get very little from sales. The Fulton example is brought up a lot, but I think the claims about mediocre returns gloss over the most important thing--Fulton's goal was to amass a collection of the finest violins in history. I don't think the return on the investment really mattered nearly as much as the bragging rights and the media publicity and having artists queuing up for a chance to visit him and play "his" violins. The Fulton collection was a passion project, and that kind of thing generally isn't a moneymaking venture. To me, the fact that he actually made any profit at all is fairly noteworthy. Just the insurance on violins at that level is astronomical. But again, that doesn't mean the average violin buyer will experience the same conditions as Fulton.
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/20/2025: 18:47:55
quote:
Originally posted by dorymanquote:
Originally posted by GeorgeHClassical violinists need violins that can perform superbly all the way up the neck. Most traditional music players do not play extensively outside first position so they don't require the same violin performance.
When you watch classical players try violins, you'll notice often the first thing they try are the high positions on the G-string. Many instruments wash-out up there because they can't sustain volume or tone even when they sound fantastic in the first position. Same is true of the E-string. So if a fiddle can't perform well in the higher positions, it is justifiably dismissed by classical players, but these violins can be great for traditional music players.
In regards to Tommy Jarrell's fiddle, it was awful. Horrible. I love his playing but he would have sounded much better if he had had a decent fiddle. For those interested, you can see his fiddle here:
si.edu/object/tommy-jarrells-v...ah_606731I just took a look at that fiddle. I've never seen a fiddle with machine tuners like that!
Tuners like that were not uncommon among the cheaper violins in catalogs in the early 20th century, especially the "fancy" violins. I've removed countless sets of similar tuners.
farmerjones - Posted - 02/20/2025: 19:22:01
I thought those machine tuners were the quick and dirty way when the pegbox is messed up? I know a good luthier can repair a messed up pegbox.
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/20/2025: 19:57:36
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin Beautifulquote:
Originally posted by GeorgeHViolins do not "jump up in value." They are poor investments. The require cash to maintain (cashflow negative) and are illiquid (hard, slow and expensive to sell).
A study of violin sales over time that tracked repeat sales of the same violins showed an average return on investment of 3.3% annually. David Fulton amassed one of the greatest collections of fine Cremonese instruments ever, and when he sold the instruments he reported an average annual return of 5.54%. Compare that to the average annual return of the S&P which has been 10.5% since 1957.
There are many good reasons to spend money to buy a fine violin that you love, but "as an investment" should not be one of them.
I have to disagree with both of these arguments. There are trends in the violin market that cause fairly sudden runs in pricing. Often a maker who worked in a major shop but largely passed unnoticed will suddenly become valuable when an expert starts to show an interest in him and authenticates several examples. How many people were familiar with Mermillot 20 years ago? Now they're getting more attention and prices are rising quickly. Roths were selling for just over $10k a decade ago, and then one sold at auction for $20k and the prices immediately went up for other Roths. Sam Zygmuntowicz was getting about the same as his colleagues for his violins, and then one that had belonged to Isaac Stern sold at auction for $180k. In no time the starting price for the most basic of his shop instruments went to $60k.
The "studies" done on violin prices seem to mostly just follow auction prices. The returns on private sales are usually higher, and one must keep in mind that even a 5% return on a $10 million investment is no laughing matter. At the high end, because the prices are so high, commissions are adjusted to be reasonable, so nobody is making $5 million on a $10 million sale. But that's looking at the very top of the market, and that's not where most sales happen. In the lower end, the returns can often hit much higher levels. Prices for good French violins have been moving up a lot lately. It used to be easy to find a good JTL under $5000, but now I'm seeing mediocre examples selling for more than $5000.
You can disagree, of course, but the numbers don't support your arguments. One can go back to retail catalogs from 50 or 100 years ago and see what violins sold for when new and what those same violins sell for today, and the annual returns are horrible compared to the actual S&P index returns. For example, in 1928 the catalog price of a new top-of-the-line Heinrich Th. Heberlein violin was $250. Today, that violin might sell in a dealer for $10,000. The annual rate of return for that "investment" after 94 years would be 4.00%.
What you're describing is essentially an encouragement to buy violins like lottery tickets - "Hey, maybe it will go up in price like a Zygmuntowicz!" Most violins never "jump up in value" and the costs to the owner to sell them are very high.
I expect dealers to push the line of violins as "good investments," but that is factually and demonstrably false. Unless you're very lucky, a violin is a mediocre investment at best.
Sure, dealers make money buying and selling violins. If a customer pays $5,000 for a violin and then asks the dealer to sell it on consignment, they will charge 20-30% to do it and it might take years to sell. Or they may buy it back for 50-60% of what the customer paid for it. "Trading up" a violin makes the dealer even more money. An auction house will charge the seller 20% of the hammer price and collect 20% of the hammer price from the buyer, so they collect 40% of the buyer's payment.
But let's look at numbers: The average annual return for the S&P 500 from 1957 through Dec. 31, 2021 was 10.67%. Over the last 10 years, the average annual return for the S&P 500 was 13.6%. And don't forget that cashflow from financial investments is usually positive whereas cashflow from violins is negative because they require maintenance.
So, it comes down to numbers. Take a look at some data from Amati Auctions published in 2022:
"The price of stringed musical instruments has been gently, but steadily rising. A study undertaken by Margolis and Graddy in Economic Inquiry Volume 49 summarised that “Overall real returns for the dataset on repeat sales for the period 1850-2008 have been approximately 3.5%. Real returns to the overall portfolio of individual sales since 1980 have been about 3.3%”. This is based on a dataset of 337 repeat sales of the same violins from the mid-19th century, and over 2500 observations on sales of individual violins at auction since 1980.
An average investment may bring you a return of 3.3%, but – as in most investments – if you choose wisely and take the time to research the market, your chosen maker and the condition of the violin, you can achieve returns much closer to 7% and above."
$10,000 in a S&P fund at 10% annual return yields $25,937 after 10 years.
$10,000 in a violin at 3.3% annual return yields $13,835 after 10 years.
It is clear that 10% annual return from a stock index fund is much better than 3.3% annual return from a violin. Violins are wonderful art works and tools for making music, but they historically are not good investments. I encourage people to buy the best violins that they can afford purely for the pleasure of owning and playing fine violins, but not consider it in any way as a retirement asset.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/20/2025 20:10:13
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/20/2025: 22:04:12
The data in that study is compiled from auction records. The problem with this is that until fairly recently, auction houses were typically places for dealers to buy and sell violins at wholesale prices, not places for hopeful investors. Auction prices therefore don’t convey any useful sense of the value of instruments over time. You can look up hammer prices for violins, but those numbers don’t explain why the violins sold at those numbers, and without context the numbers just don’t actually mean what a lot of people seem to think. A violin that sold at auction in 1970 might have sold for 50% of its retail, or it might have only sold for 20% because it wasn’t a very good example or because it just didn’t get a lot of attention and ended up selling for an amount closer to its reserve because the auctions weren’t online at that time and watched by a worldwide audience as they are today. Even though the growth of public interest in auctions has led to higher and higher hammer prices that have almost upended the old auction price=half retail saying, unless it’s a very high profile violin, the auction house is still a last resort for violins that aren’t salable elsewhere. If a violin doesn’t appreciate much as it bounces around from auction to auction over the years, that tells you more about the violin than it does about the market. Private sale numbers would maybe be a little more enlightening, but people don’t like to share that data for various reasons. In any case, while 3.3% may be the average, it’s mentioned that if a buyer does market research, returns of 7% or higher are feasible.
I assume the return for the investment of the violin is calculated by simply subtracting the initial purchase price from the final sales price and dividing by the number of years of ownership. That’s a very artificial means of determining value, and as I said before, it ignores every other aspect of the violin’s value.
The long-term investment scenario isn’t even applicable for a lot of people who buy violins, as so many who engage in buying for monetary gain do so as short-term investors. Those buyers are more like house flippers—they look for rock bottom or unrecognized deals and they put in enough to make them salable at higher prices. There are very many teachers who do just this, and the profits can be astonishing.
I don’t at all recommend buying violins like lottery tickets. If you’re going to take on the risk of buying a violin to make money, know what you’re doing before making any moves. If you buy a lottery ticket, you’re paying a fairly small amount in the hope that you will get the one winning ticket among thousands or millions. If you buy a violin, the odds of “winning” are better the more you know about it and the bigger your network to resell it. As far as the jump in prices for makers, I can think of lots of examples of this. I've already mentioned a few. Tarisio himself created the whole rare violin market along with Vuillaume in a very short span of time. Violins made by a single maker from a good area at a good time are likely to experience a jump at some point. You just can't know when that will happen with much certainty.
I think it’s dangerous to use a violin as a nest egg for many reasons, although there’s no denying that this happens. I never encourage my customers to buy that way. My own attitude toward buying instruments is that I have to be comfortable with the possibility that I’ll never sell them; their value isn’t simply in their purchase price.
I suppose to some extent it would be great for collectors if a large portion of buyers could be dissuaded from buying. The more people you can discourage from buying violins, the fewer you have to worry about bidding against you and driving up the prices. If demand increases too much you can be priced out of completing your collection.
Edited by - The Violin Beautiful on 02/20/2025 22:16:59
ChickenMan - Posted - 02/20/2025: 22:12:51
I think the violins you two are taking about are of vastly differing quality and current market value.
No one is investing in a $2000 or less (likely way more too) violin. I don't think Rich is taking about violins that are not within the average investor's resources, definitely not catalog fiddles. I could be wrong.
Edited by - ChickenMan on 02/20/2025 22:13:36
martyjoe - Posted - 02/21/2025: 02:46:21
I spoke to a violin luthier briefly as he was setting up a stand at a music festival here in town a couple of years ago. He was pricing his builds at €10,000 and according to him that was pretty standard. I got an estimate of €25,000 and a 3 year wait to get an 18” tenor viola built from a different luthier in England about 4 years ago so when I recently decided to make my own I am prepared to spend 3 years to make one prepared to spend €25,000. This will end up about right because I’m going to make it with composite body. After a few expensive wall hangers I hope to have my dream fiddle in a few years time. By then I should be fairly competent on it as well.
wrench13 - Posted - 02/21/2025: 05:13:31
Re: fiddles as investments - good topic for a separate thread, but since its being discussed here, I have a comment on Rich's. As I said earlier I've played an Amati. Back in the mid 70's I met a guy on the NYC subway, we both had fiddle cases and we gave each other the 'fiddler's nod' and started talking. He invited me to his place to try the violin. Turned out, this fellow had been playing even less time then I. He, an Asian guy, told me he had purchased this Amati (and I wish I could remember the details ie name, date etc) as an investment. He basically rented it out to touring soloists when they were performing at Carnagie Hall or the Philharmonic Hall at Lincoln Center.
Point being that at certain levels, this is also a positive income stream from owning a rare, fine violin. Similar to owning a rare, well known model of automobile - say a Duesenberg, film companies and ad agencies might want to rent it for a movie or advertisement. All this is highly speculative though. You get a car or fiddle like that to admire and hopefully drive or play the thing.
Thread drift over.
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/21/2025: 05:34:30
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulThe data in that study is compiled from auction records. The problem with this is that until fairly recently, auction houses were typically places for dealers to buy and sell violins at wholesale prices, not places for hopeful investors. Auction prices therefore don’t convey any useful sense of the value of instruments over time. You can look up hammer prices for violins, but those numbers don’t explain why the violins sold at those numbers, and without context the numbers just don’t actually mean what a lot of people seem to think. A violin that sold at auction in 1970 might have sold for 50% of its retail, or it might have only sold for 20% because it wasn’t a very good example or because it just didn’t get a lot of attention and ended up selling for an amount closer to its reserve because the auctions weren’t online at that time and watched by a worldwide audience as they are today. Even though the growth of public interest in auctions has led to higher and higher hammer prices that have almost upended the old auction price=half retail saying, unless it’s a very high profile violin, the auction house is still a last resort for violins that aren’t salable elsewhere. If a violin doesn’t appreciate much as it bounces around from auction to auction over the years, that tells you more about the violin than it does about the market. Private sale numbers would maybe be a little more enlightening, but people don’t like to share that data for various reasons. In any case, while 3.3% may be the average, it’s mentioned that if a buyer does market research, returns of 7% or higher are feasible.
I assume the return for the investment of the violin is calculated by simply subtracting the initial purchase price from the final sales price and dividing by the number of years of ownership. That’s a very artificial means of determining value, and as I said before, it ignores every other aspect of the violin’s value.
The data cited in the study is based on 337 individual repeat sales and 2,500 auction sales of individual violins, so not just auctions sales. Plus, in general, percentage retail price changes correlate with wholesale price changes.
Also, the idea that “the auction house is still a last resort for violins that aren’t salable elsewhere” is simply not true. Dealers like to say that because it reduces bidding competition. Fact is that are many good to fine instruments on sale at specialty auctions for many good reasons, and there are many dealers bidding on them.
But one does not need to rely on auction prices to understand violin price appreciation. I have also pointed out that one can know the original retail prices of many violins many decades ago when they were new and the approximate current dealer retail prices of these same violins. The percent annualized Return on Investment (ROI) can be calculated from this (as I gave an example). The ROI is still very low (~4%).
BTW, ROI is calculated by using a percentage rate compounded annually, not “by simply subtracting the initial purchase price from the final sales price and dividing by the number of years”.
In regards to “it ignores every other aspect of the violin’s value,” we are discussing prices which are only measured in money. I also did not include cost of sale (20% or more), inflation adjustment, and capital gains tax (which is much higher for violins than it is for securities). If you include them, the ROI for a violin is much much worse than securities.
Here is a personal example. I own a fine bench-made violin by a very well-know and popular maker that sold new for about $300 in 1915. I had it appraised by a well-respected dealer and appraiser in 1978 for $2,500 when I bought it. I had it re-appraised last year by the same person for $15,000. The violin was in the same well-preserved condition as in 1978. It is not for sale.
These returns are not adjusted for inflation and they track well with the study I cited.
If I had invested that same $2,500 in the S&P 500 at the beginning of 1978 it would have grown to $561,179 which is an ROI of 12.25% per year. Adjusted for inflation, the return is 8.85%.
In the aggregate, violins are simply poor investments for an individual. The numbers don’t lie.
By the way, what I am writing here is not a put-down of violin dealers at all. They serve a wonderful purpose to our community. I have purchased and sold violins to several dealers. We need to support good dealers. It is very expensive to purchase and maintain an inventory of fine violins so buyers can have a good selection to try. Dealers deserve and need to make a decent profit for what they do. They earn it.
My only point in writing this here is to help people understand that violins are not good investments based on the real-life numbers. But, like I said, there are many many other reasons to buy and enjoy the best violin that you can afford. I have collected fine violins and bows for over 40 years because I enjoy them, not to make a profit. I do want them to increase in value, but enjoyment of the instruments and playing them are the main reasons to buy wonderful violins, and I encourage that. The best violin that you can buy is the one you want to play.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/21/2025 05:43:38
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/21/2025: 05:55:28
quote:
Originally posted by wrench13Turned out, this fellow had been playing even less time then I. He, an Asian guy, told me he had purchased this Amati (and I wish I could remember the details ie name, date etc) as an investment. He basically rented it out to touring soloists when they were performing at Carnagie Hall or the Philharmonic Hall at Lincoln Center.
I don't believe this guy's story. Touring soloists would never walk on-stage at Carnegie Hall with an unfamiliar rented violin unless their main instrument was suddenly unplayable or unavailable. And if they did not already have their own back-up violin with them (many do), then they would go to an established fine violin house to try great violins to pick one or borrow the concert master's. Soloists at that level play violins and bows that they have spent many months and/or years knowing how to get the nuanced sound and volume that they want out of it.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/21/2025 06:01:17
pete_fiddle - Posted - 02/21/2025: 06:20:06
They do use different instruments for the performance of a certain piece of music. They will choose the x Strad for this piece, or the y Guarnari for another. Hired from places that just do that. One instrument won't suite all music. i watched a tv program where they where choosing a violin for a certain piece, to hear which violin was best for the job.
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/21/2025: 06:36:41
Here is some information from another study with numbers and charts. Does data lie? As a non-living thing it does not have the ability to explain or represent its own veracity, but the same data set of numbers can be used selectively to promote different perspectives. The more rapid growth of the market since 1980 makes sense. That could be a reason why a violin sold pre-1980s can be interpreted as having a lower ROI.
Again, I’m not arguing that everyone should buy violins as investments, just that the suggestion that they’re uniformly poor investments doesn’t quite add up. The violin market has grown steadily over centuries. If it was such a poor investment vehicle, I think that would have had an effect on its growth. The opposite has occurred. Auction houses are only getting bigger and prices for many violins are hitting levels where even many top-tier players can’t buy them by themselves anymore. Naysayers keep predicting the collapse of the market, but like the end of the world, each predicted expiration date keeps passing by.
As a player and luthier, I’d personally like it if prices were more stable and didn’t increase so much, but that’s just not the way it works.
As mentioned above, the focus just on an ROI derived from auction results is imprecise and incomplete when considering whether violins are worthwhile investments. The fact that violins are commodities that can be used to generate additional income apart from their sale value is important. Violins can be rented out or played to make a living or merely used as marketing tools. There was a shop owner in the past who used to drum up a lot of business by letting everyone play his Strad. He sold many other violins by luring people into the shop with the promise that they could “play
on a real Strad.” A violin that helps to sell other violins can be a good investment. Some shops intentionally use “cannon fodder fiddles” that are more expensive and don’t sound great during sales appointments to make the violins they actually want to sell sound better by comparison. And if a violin can change the trajectory of your career, that’s a return too.
tarisio.com/cozio-archive/cozi...tigation/
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/21/2025: 09:35:39
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulHere is some information from another study with numbers and charts. Does data lie? As a non-living thing it does not have the ability to explain or represent its own veracity, but the same data set of numbers can be used selectively to promote different perspectives. The more rapid growth of the market since 1980 makes sense. That could be a reason why a violin sold pre-1980s can be interpreted as having a lower ROI.
Again, I’m not arguing that everyone should buy violins as investments, just that the suggestion that they’re uniformly poor investments doesn’t quite add up. The violin market has grown steadily over centuries. If it was such a poor investment vehicle, I think that would have had an effect on its growth. The opposite has occurred. Auction houses are only getting bigger and prices for many violins are hitting levels where even many top-tier players can’t buy them by themselves anymore. Naysayers keep predicting the collapse of the market, but like the end of the world, each predicted expiration date keeps passing by.
tarisio.com/cozio-archive/cozi...tigation/
Tarisio gets 40% of the final price the buyer pays for violins under $20,000. That is money out of the consignor's pocket and can eat up most or all of any financial appreciation.
The cost to sell a violin is 20 - 50% of the retail price when sold to or through a dealer or a specialty auction. It is very expensive to sell a violin whereas the cost to sell a security is relatively nothing. Dealers and auction houses have built-in profit margins, so they make money regardless of whether or not the consignor does.
As far as "Auction houses are only getting bigger" that is in large part because the big houses like Sotheby's, Christies, Skinner, Bonhams, and Freemans have all exited from their musical instrument auctions because they were not profitable compared to their other auctions. The industry has consolidated.
In every way the numerical analysis show that violins are poor investments compared to alternatives like S&P index funds. That is how the numbers do "add up." Hand waving arguments won't make that go away. The fact that a very few people who own violins can make money playing them is completely irrelevant to the inherent value of the object itself. Just because some people make money driving their cars does not increase the value of cars or make their cars more valuable when they sell them.
The article that you cited from Tarisio supports exactly what I am saying for most violins (not top-tier violins like Strads and Guarneris): the ROI for them is low (3.5 - 6.7%) compared to financial investments. The author also cites the need for long hold times and does not include cost of ownership in their calculations such as maintenance and insurance.
Finally, market growth does not equate to good investments. Cell phones, for example, have strong market growth but are not good investments. Cell phone company stock, though, has been a very good investment! The influx of good inexpensive violins from China may be growing the overall violin market, but they are also likely putting downward pressure on violin prices as a whole. Remember that we are talking about price appreciation over time, and for the vast majority of violins, this is quite low compared to other investment opportunities.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/21/2025 09:39:10
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/21/2025: 11:10:06
quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeHquote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulHere is some information from another study with numbers and charts. Does data lie? As a non-living thing it does not have the ability to explain or represent its own veracity, but the same data set of numbers can be used selectively to promote different perspectives. The more rapid growth of the market since 1980 makes sense. That could be a reason why a violin sold pre-1980s can be interpreted as having a lower ROI.
Again, I’m not arguing that everyone should buy violins as investments, just that the suggestion that they’re uniformly poor investments doesn’t quite add up. The violin market has grown steadily over centuries. If it was such a poor investment vehicle, I think that would have had an effect on its growth. The opposite has occurred. Auction houses are only getting bigger and prices for many violins are hitting levels where even many top-tier players can’t buy them by themselves anymore. Naysayers keep predicting the collapse of the market, but like the end of the world, each predicted expiration date keeps passing by.
tarisio.com/cozio-archive/cozi...tigation/Tarisio gets 40% of the final price the buyer pays for violins under $20,000. That is money out of the consignor's pocket and can eat up most or all of any financial appreciation.
The cost to sell a violin is 20 - 50% of the retail price when sold to or through a dealer or a specialty auction. It is very expensive to sell a violin whereas the cost to sell a security is relatively nothing. Dealers and auction houses have built-in profit margins, so they make money regardless of whether or not the consignor does.
As far as "Auction houses are only getting bigger" that is in large part because the big houses like Sotheby's, Christies, Skinner, Bonhams, and Freemans have all exited from their musical instrument auctions because they were not profitable compared to their other auctions. The industry has consolidated.
In every way the numerical analysis show that violins are poor investments compared to alternatives like S&P index funds. That is how the numbers do "add up." Hand waving arguments won't make that go away. The fact that a very few people who own violins can make money playing them is completely irrelevant to the inherent value of the object itself. Just because some people make money driving their cars does not increase the value of cars or make their cars more valuable when they sell them.
The article that you cited from Tarisio supports exactly what I am saying for most violins (not top-tier violins like Strads and Guarneris): the ROI for them is low (3.5 - 6.7%) compared to financial investments. The author also cites the need for long hold times and does not include cost of ownership in their calculations such as maintenance and insurance.
Finally, market growth does not equate to good investments. Cell phones, for example, have strong market growth but are not good investments. Cell phone company stock, though, has been a very good investment! The influx of good inexpensive violins from China may be growing the overall violin market, but they are also likely putting downward pressure on violin prices as a whole. Remember that we are talking about price appreciation over time, and for the vast majority of violins, this is quite low compared to other investment opportunities.
If you reread the article, you'll see that the 3.5-6.7% figure is for the time from the mid-19th century to 1980, but in the last 40 years alone, the number goes up to 12% ...or more. That's not poor investment data.
While several auction houses that never specialized in musical instruments have decided to cut out the musical instrument department (probably because of the costs they incur to employ enough knowledgeable people to handle them and to present the items to the public through viewings or advertising), other places have popped up to take their spot. Due to the unique nature of the musical instrument business, Tarisio has benefited from being solely focused on violin family instruments, bows, and ephemera. And the Vichy auction is flourishing as I'm told. I've never followed the Amati auctions, so I can't speak to them.
Arguing that violins don't behave like stocks as investment tools seems pointless to me. By nature tangible commodities are different from intangibles, and the value in them is assessed according to other criteria. There are pros and cons to putting money into anything, and while the S&P is a good idea for most investors, that does not mean that violins are a poor choice.
The comment about Chinese instruments is interesting to me, as I would say the opposite. When Chinese violins entered the market, it was done through the bottom end, producing instruments for beginning students and making instruments available at lower prices than you could find from European suppliers. It took some time for them to catch up to the more experienced manufactures in basic quality and even longer to become accepted by teachers as suitable options. Eventually a foothold was established, and once that was in place, it gave the factories the incentive and ability to start offering more expensive options. Whereas most of the violins sold to shops were being offered for $100 or less, for a few hundred more, violins with different wood or models or prettier varnish became available. And as the market grew, the dealers who sold to shops began setting MAP pricing for these violins that was in direct competition with commercial German violins. Rental shops started to sell these higher level violins to their customers as step ups because they had a large enough margin to make up for rental credit. As prices crept upward, the market eventually reacted. Old German commercial violins had stayed relatively consistent in value over decades, and while they didn't accumulate much value, they didn't lose any. But then prices of Chinese factory violins were hitting the same levels, and there was a realization that the market for old Germans had to change as well. I saw dealer prices change by at least $500 in a period of a few months. French violin prices have gone up a lot recently, as have old and modern Italian. The pressure at both ends of the market has been upward, and the middle has followed suit.
If you look at the vendor tables at folk music festivals, those amazing low deals on nice old instruments are long gone. What's left at low prices are wrecks that are beaten to death, horribly savaged by poor repair attempts, and set up incompetently. Even cheap new factory instruments are selling for $1000 or more.
GeorgeH - Posted - 02/21/2025: 11:51:58
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulIf you reread the article, you'll see that the 3.5-6.7% figure is for the time from the mid-19th century to 1980, but in the last 40 years alone, the number goes up to 12% ...or more. That's not poor investment data.
If you reread the article, you'll see that the author was writing about "top tier" violins (violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù) for the 12% appreciation:
"The first conclusion of my research is that fine stringed instruments offer a steady annual increase in real returns between 3.7-6.9%, with a dramatic increase in value since the 1980s. Over the past forty years, many instruments in the top tier have climbed in value, up to 12%, with little downside or volatility."
Sales of violins by Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù are only a very tiny percentage of the violin market with only a few sales per year. Even so, I think I trust David Fulton's number of around 5.54% annual appreciation more. He includes the cost of selling and the maintenance costs in his calculations, and he is a really smart guy when it comes to dealing with numbers and negotiating with dealers.
Finally, I have never "argued that violins don't behave like stocks as investment tools" because they obviously don't. I have only argued that they are very poor long-term investments compared to stock index funds because their annual ROI is much lower historically. The numbers in the article you posted support that argument even though the author is trying to paint as rosey a picture as possible for Tarisio using only Tarisio's auction and private sales numbers.
Anyway, I have made my point here repeatedly. If people want to believe that violins are good investments compared to higher yielding financial investments, then good luck to them. Maybe they will win the violin lottery. Maybe you will, too. :-)
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/21/2025 11:58:54
ChickenMan - Posted - 02/21/2025: 12:03:49
Again, these violins your two are arguing about are not the same as a high yield investment simply because the violins of any real investment value are prohibitively expensive. They are not the average consumer purchase, and ~no one here~ except maybe Rich, is thinking about "investing in violins."
Edited by - ChickenMan on 02/21/2025 12:04:16
martyjoe - Posted - 02/21/2025: 13:04:38
I’ve still got $50 of my first communion money left. So I think I’ll invest it in a Mouth Organ :-)
alaskafiddler - Posted - 02/21/2025: 14:01:45
quote:
Originally posted by DougDThe "sweet spot" between $2000 and $5000 may tend "to be attractive to everyone" in some markets and among some groups of people, but I wonder how many FHO members or those who enjoy jamming at places like Clifftop have instruments in that range. I suspect (and its just a suspicion) that many might be more in the "sub $1000" range.
There is some aspect of range that should be considered when comparing. For string instruments, it's not linear, and can get kind of wonky, and get into apples to oranges. But to what Eric mentioned bang for buck... typically biggest noticeable dollar for dollar differences typically tend to be at lower ranges.
I know lots of fiddlers (and guitar, mando, banjo) who play pretty decent quality instruments; quite few that in today's appraised value are in that $2-5K range, a few a bit more. (esp if considered vintage). Many fiddlers, after few years, do notice that upgrade to that range, decide it's worth it, can afford it. Of course many found fiddles for less, lots in $1-2K range, which can sound pretty darn good; and even some of what they found in the hundreds of dollars; to which are content with and work just fine for that person.
Note that they didn't necessarily pay those higher value figures; keeping in mind, what someone acquired an instrument for, is not necessarily what it's appraised value is now, nor possibly then. Most didn't acquire shiny newly built retail violin. As used, many were not thru a retail store; so prices can tend be all over the place, and price might not reflect quality. Most of these, won't really depreciate like a car. Great/good finds; often involve how little paid, or bartered... vs quality; always makes for more interesting stories though. There are good finds out there, although that $200 find is unlikely to be some very valuable 5 or 6 figure gem; still can be a good sounding instrument, valued in a higher range than paid.
I'm pretty sure Tommy Jarrell's fiddle didn't depreciate from what he paid in 1915(?). IIRC was from Mitterwald, ca 1880s; despite he acquired for only $10... might not reflect it's quality, or be a bad instrument, as many of those are sounding decent fiddles, some maybe value in thousands in today's market.
Brian Wood - Posted - 02/21/2025: 15:15:33
Perhaps it's been mentioned, I haven't followed the thread, but most expensive violins are priced because of their provenance, either because they're from a known maker, or have been owned and played by a respected player. Tommy Jarrell's fiddle is doubtless worth way more than $10 now, because he owned it. I think that perfectly playable instruments can be found in lower price ranges. It's a matter of trying out different ones, and not confusing value with cost.
Probably the same with bows.
Edited by - Brian Wood on 02/21/2025 15:16:45
DougD - Posted - 02/21/2025: 16:23:37
Yes it has been mentioned, along with a lot of other way off topic ideas.
Since Tommy Jarrell's fiddle has been mentioned, I don't think it was nearly as "bad" as some people think. Here's a recording I made in Tommy's living room, with our friend Beverly Cotten dancing. I think the tone suits the sound of his voice quite well and conveys the energy in his music and personality. If you listen on headphones or good speakers you'll get a better idea.
youtu.be/Egyg5HWFrjE?feature=shared
alaskafiddler - Posted - 02/21/2025: 16:52:06
There's always a question of how well recordings reflect the quality of the actual instrument, compared to in the room; and/or in others hands. I've heard a few of folks say his fiddle sounded much better live, and Including those who got chance to play it.
Of course one quality recordings don't capture well is how loud or projection; which can be an important aspect to fiddles, esp. playing with other instruments.
edit to add: there is always part of the blues guitar adage "the tone is in the hands" - has certain truth to it; at least up to a point. The player tends to have a fingerprint, sound much similar on different instruments, than different players on same instrument.
Edited by - alaskafiddler on 02/21/2025 17:04:35
DougD - Posted - 02/21/2025: 17:06:17
That recording was made with a Neumann KM-84, picking up both the fiddle and vocal, so it was a little ways away. Analog recording on an Otari MX-5050. No processing. Thinking about it now, that mic might not have been the best choice, but its the most accurate mic I've owned. I could have used a Beyer ribbon, which might have been more flattering. Anyway, I think it represents his sound pretty well. I also played with Tommy, in that roo and outside situations, and I never found his sound annoying.
Brian Wood - Posted - 02/21/2025: 18:48:09
quote:
Originally posted by DougDYes it has been mentioned, along with a lot of other way off topic ideas.
I was off topic?
wrench13 - Posted - 02/22/2025: 03:45:00
Whistles.... mouth organs.... investment portfolios..... auction house tactics...... the thread's 'Been All Around This World'. Thanks NCNotes for a thought provoking topic.
NCnotes - Posted - 02/22/2025: 06:40:12
Yes, interesting!
So I think that both violinists and fiddlers appreciate/need a decent instrument and not a “VSO”. But the playing needs of fiddlers may top out lower than the needs of violinists (i.e. don’t need seventh position on the g string, etc) so the price range of instruments used by fiddlers may reflect that. I also think very few of us are violin “investors”…although it’s interesting to read about what’s going on out there in the violin stratosphere (Stradivarisphere :-).
It makes sense that newly made instruments cost more now…wood costs more…labor costs more…workshop rental costs more…now, on the topic of Inflation... (Just kidding, hahahaha!)
Edited by - NCnotes on 02/22/2025 06:40:50
boxbow - Posted - 02/22/2025: 11:27:42
Less than a year and a half ago I finally replaced the fiddle upon which I'd embarked on my fiddling journey. There was were long stagnant periods because learning fiddle is hard, and making that particular fiddle play was hard. But it was the fiddle I owned and budgets were tight. Then somehow I figured some things out starting about fifteen years ago. Made friends, learned tunes, joined the FHO.
Having now acquired this lightly used but unmaintained Chinese fiddle I've learned what I was missing, but it's still a fiddle. Upon it's purchase, I fell in love every time I picked it up. I sent it to a luthier who quite matter-of-factly showed me all these flaws before working on it. Total cost: just under $2000.
I just had other things to spend my money on for all those years. It's not that I didn't want to find that great fiddle and eventually the stars aligned or some such thing. It was not the fiddle itself that made my connections with the music community. It was the varied experiences I had with fiddling.
It's still a delightful fiddle.
The Violin Beautiful - Posted - 02/23/2025: 06:34:29
quote:
Originally posted by NCnotesYes, interesting!
So I think that both violinists and fiddlers appreciate/need a decent instrument and not a “VSO”. But the playing needs of fiddlers may top out lower than the needs of violinists (i.e. don’t need seventh position on the g string, etc) so the price range of instruments used by fiddlers may reflect that. I also think very few of us are violin “investors”…although it’s interesting to read about what’s going on out there in the violin stratosphere (Stradivarisphere :-).
It makes sense that newly made instruments cost more now…wood costs more…labor costs more…workshop rental costs more…now, on the topic of Inflation... (Just kidding, hahahaha!)
One major problem with looking just at what's going on in auction houses is that it doesn't provide a picture of the majority of the violin market. Auctions are a very small share of the business comparatively. The studies done on fine and precious old violins show that, unlike the majority of other luxury items, violins actually appreciate, some of them at a rate that beats gold as an investment. If you look at the sales of less expensive instruments at auctions, of course the returns will look smaller, but that's not how most of these violins are sold. Again, auctions are the dumping grounds for problem children and there aren't any deals to be found. Some things are just too problematic to sell, and many that do are overpriced. I've had so many customers bring instruments to me after buying at auctions. It's not pleasant to have to deal with the aftermath of those customers getting burned.
In the lower end of the spectrum where the majority of the market's sales occur (under $10k), this is where very many people get involved in buying speculatively. There are people who make their living scouring the world for violins they can find for low prices in estate sales, flea markets, players' collections, antique stores, and school orchestras. If you can find a salvageable violin for under $1000 that's priced like that because the seller has no idea of its value or just doesn't care to put the effort into preparing it for sale, there's a large potential for a "violin flipper" to make a profit. If condition is reasonably good, you can get away with just putting a few hundred into its setup. Then you have a violin that's worth several thousand. When I was working at a shop previously, a customer walked in with a violin he'd bought for $50 at a flea market to ask if it was good enough for his daughter, who was just starting to play, to take to school. The violin was an Amadee Dieudonne from the 1920s and it was in perfect condition, not even any scratches or dirt on it. It was in a nice old leather case and there was even a decent silver mounted bow. I've never seen a more beautiful Dieudonne since that day, and both the shop owner and I would have bought that violin in a heartbeat, but once we told the buyer that it was valuable, he got excited about how much he hoped to make on reselling it, and the cash offer he was made on the spot wasn't enough to encourage him to part with it, even though it would have been a gigantic profit. I never saw it again and it's one of those violins that haunt me.
Lots of teachers like to dabble in violins at this level because this budget is what is available to most of their students. Some of the more elite teachers have students that need more violin or come from families with more resources, so the violins they sell are at a higher price. But the intermediate student level is where most of the action occurs because that level includes higher quality Chinese instruments, Eastern Europeans, old Germans, some old French, many Americans, and even some Cremonese workshops or emerging makers. Auctions are the wordt places to look for violins at this level, and it's no surprise that numbers don't look impressive. But the numbers do tell the whole story.
I think this important because the inexpensive violin market is actually pretty strong and it's been appreciating a lot lately. As I said, I'm a little sorry to see prices jumping up for many violins because it makes it harder for me to buy them. It used to be easy to buy boxfuls of old Germans for $50 a piece, and a lot of people got started in dealing by just buying up 50 or 100 violins this way, fixing them up, and making a modest profit without spending a fortune. Those days are long gone, but the market hasn't slowed down at all--quite the opposite.
TuneWeaver - Posted - 02/23/2025: 07:21:54
This is all interesting stuff. Makes me pine for a good bowing thread...!
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent (EU/GDPR Only)
Copyright 2026 Fiddle Hangout. All Rights Reserved.
