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.
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.
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
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
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.
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/
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
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.
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
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
I’ve still got $50 of my first communion money left. So I think I’ll invest it in a Mouth Organ :-)
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.
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
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
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
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.
quote:
Originally posted by DougDYes it has been mentioned, along with a lot of other way off topic ideas.
I was off topic?
Whistles.... mouth organs.... investment portfolios..... auction house tactics...... the thread's 'Been All Around This World'. Thanks NCNotes for a thought provoking topic.
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
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.
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.
“Violin flipping” is a good way to put it :-)
This is all interesting stuff. Makes me pine for a good bowing thread...!
Ask and you shall receive!
quote:
Originally posted by The Violin BeautifulAgain, 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.
This is demonstrably false. Like “violins are good investments,” it is another myth perpetrated by dealers to sell their violins. In fact, dealers buy many of the violins and bows sold at specialty musical instrument auctions because many of them are very good to fine instruments and there are deals to be found. They can then mark-up the prices to retail in their shops.
Dealers like to perpetuate this myth because:
People consign violins to auctions for many different reasons such as:
Even good violins can languish for years in dealer’s shops waiting for a buyer. Auctions provide liquidity to violins sales where a violin can be sold for a not-less-than price by a given date. Dealers cannot offer that.
If you’re not comfortable buying at an auction by yourself or with an advisor, then go to a dealer that you can trust. But don’t believe that "auctions are the dumping grounds for problem children and there aren't any deals to be found." It simply isn't true. If it were true, dealers would not be using them to add to their inventories.
Edited by - GeorgeH on 02/24/2025 12:19:51
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent (EU/GDPR Only)
Copyright 2026 Fiddle Hangout. All Rights Reserved.
