Sam Z violin for sale

[Rue]

...I deliberately purchased a better quality 'spare' violin (name brand decent factory made) a couple of years ago and shortly thereafter decided instead to upgrade my 'good small-shop' violin to an 'excellent bench-made' violin and keep the 'good small-shop' as my spare...leaving me with a violin I really don't need, use or even want right now...

 

...when I took the violin back to the music store I was told they would only give me 40% of the purchase price for it...even though it was/is in pristine condition outside of being played in.

 

Why?  Because no matter in what good shape it was...it was  still just a 'used' violin.

 

Now...if we were to apply that approach in this instance...given a new Sam Z is $58,000...that would make the violin worth - at best - $31,900 to the seller (less because it likely cost less back then - but I have no idea of what the original purchase price was).  So the rest of the sale price would consist of a very substantial mark-up and restocking fee..provenance fee...and dare I say it...pure unadulterated profit...

 

Funny stuff...

 

**p.s.  I still have said 'spare'...and it's still for sale if any one is interested...

[Carl Stross]

 

What is being discussed here is someone else's property and the price they are asking for it.  You could argue it's justified, or not... but it's an article that has been offered by the owner.  Any comment concerning it's value to another in a public forum has potential to be inappropriate (or damaging), in my opinion.  

 

 

ENRON ?

 

Look : neither "the seller" nor Sam Z live in a vacuum and they'd both object loudly if a lot of Gov interferences with "free enterprise" would suddenly disappear because life would become real HARD, real QUICK and selling violins about the last thing one could find profitable to be busy with. Sam Z is the maker and he should be entitled to command such prices as the market will bear and we should not forget that he does have in all probability expenses slightly more substantial than a daily sandwich. By trying to sell the violin at some 3 times the current price from the maker, the present seller is SPECULATING and in quite a few jurisdictions she'd have to word her sales pitch very carefully because contrary to what some may think, the law does protect the stupid.

Sometimes too much.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

Sorry Jeffrey, I don't understand. The violin is advertised for sale on violinist.com for a slightly eyebrow-raising price - as you've said yourself in other contexts, if someone is selling online, they have every reason to expect comment. I have learnt that lesson the hard way! Whether that comment is from professionals or not (what's the definition?) doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether it's relevant or illuminating, and I think professionals should be free to express general opinions on Maestronet. I would rather disagree violently with an identifiable professional who has something at stake than with an anonymous amateur in search of an argument

This is a forum in which we discuss all sorts of matters pertaining to violins.

I think the question of "added value" through provenance in relation to new violins is quite important and should be discussed, and it's best discussed with reference to an example or two. This violin is a very interesting example, and I don't believe that a bit of pro/con disagreement is going to influence the sale price any more negatively than positively. This is the world we have created - everything gets discussed publicly, and the seller has to accept that. In fact I think the seller has invited that, perhaps accidentally, perhaps not.

Anyway, I see I am in a minority. I am happy to refrain from offering opinions on this particular sale, and will edit the comments I have made revealing my own thoughts on the matter.

OK Martin.  Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Yes.  Toss it out in public, and one should expect public comment.  Agreed.  This is a fact, no matter if I agree that it's dignified, or professional, or not.

 

I think you've probably noticed I've refrained from comment on items for sale as I feel it's not appropriate as a professional, and I've pointed this out.  I feel the appropriate way for a professional to behave is as a professional.  I understand that some may differ in their views of what that "looks like".  I think I've been clear about what it looks like to me.

 

In addition, this thread brings into the discussion a living professional maker, who has set a price for his own goods.  What happens within any marketplace for those goods once they are owned by another sometimes has little to do with that maker's original price.  Yes, high resale figures could prove (and probably have proved) to benefit the maker in terms of market and demand... but it's the market that decides the fate of the item.  I do not wish that a discussion of a resale here effects any living maker's reputation.

 

I note a good amount of speculation and comparison on this thread that I can find fault with, and some which I do not.  I don't believe some who have presented these market comparisons understand the data as well as they might think... or may not have looked at, or have had access, to all of it.  I'm not sure most here really do understand how and how much provenance affects the value of any particular instrument... and to better understand it, I would think instruments that have already gone through the sale process one or more times, rather than one that was in the process of being offered, would better illustrate the phenomenon anyway.

 

Clearer?

[Carl Stross]

...I deliberately purchased a better quality 'spare' violin (name brand decent factory made) a couple of years ago and shortly thereafter decided instead to upgrade my 'good small-shop' violin to an 'excellent bench-made' violin and keep the 'good small-shop' as my spare...leaving me with a violin I really don't need, use or even want right now...

 

...when I took the violin back to the music store I was told they would only give me 40% of the purchase price for it...even though it was/is in pristine condition outside of being played in.

 

Why?  Because no matter in what good shape it was...it was  still just a 'used' violin.

 

Now...if we were to apply that approach in this instance...given a new Sam Z is $58,000...that would make the violin worth - at best - $31,900 to the seller (less because it likely cost less back then - but I have no idea of what the original purchase price was).  So the rest of the sale price would consist of a very substantial mark-up and restocking fee..provenance fee...and dare I say it...pure unadulterated profit...

 

Funny stuff...

 

**p.s.  I still have said 'spare'...and it's still for sale if any one is interested...

 

I am really sorry to hear about this. 

[Rue]

That they'd only give me back 40%?  Or that I keep buying cheap violins?

[skiingfiddler]

...I deliberately purchased a better quality 'spare' violin (name brand decent factory made) a couple of years ago and shortly thereafter decided instead to upgrade my 'good small-shop' violin to an 'excellent bench-made' violin and keep the 'good small-shop' as my spare...leaving me with a violin I really don't need, use or even want right now...

 

...when I took the violin back to the music store I was told they would only give me 40% of the purchase price for it...even though it was/is in pristine condition outside of being played in.

 

Why?  Because no matter in what good shape it was...it was  still just a 'used' violin.

 

Now...if we were to apply that approach in this instance...given a new Sam Z is $58,000...that would make the violin worth - at best - $31,900 to the seller (less because it likely cost less back then - but I have no idea of what the original purchase price was).  So the rest of the sale price would consist of a very substantial mark-up and restocking fee..provenance fee...and dare I say it...pure unadulterated profit...

 

Funny stuff...

 

**p.s.  I still have said 'spare'...and it's still for sale if any one is interested...

 

Rue,

You really can't expect the pricing variation over time of your factory violin and that of a Sam Z to be parallel.  Those two instruments are just not comparable in terms of market forces. 

 

Over a few years, maybe decades, after purchase, your factory violin will behave in pricing like any other common commodity in use, ie, it will depreciate because of use -- probably about 50% as soon as you walk out the shop door with it.  Maybe in 100 years, because of general inflation and because the violin interested public has decided that old factory fiddles are better than new factory fiddles, your factory fiddle might be worth a lot more than it is now, but that's not a given.

 

A fine, contemporary violin from a maker with an international reputation and whose fiddles are in the hands of top performers may well increase in price depending on the individual violin, developments in the maker's reputation, and who's played the instrument.  It may also decrease in price, depending on the items I've just listed.  With an instrument from Sam Z, given his reputation, it's very likely his instruments will increase in value, or at the very least, retain their value very well.

 

Let's put it this way:  There's no waiting list for your factory fiddle; you can buy one new tomorrow.  I don't know how long Sam Z's is.  It may be years, and he can pick and choose who he'll allow on that list.  Now, which fiddle, your factory or Sam Z's, is going to appreciate over time and which will depreciate?

 

A dozen years back I wanted to purchase a violin from an award winning maker.  The American representative for that maker told me the price, a very reasonable price, but noted that I couldn't buy one because the maker was restricting his sales to professional musicians.  When high end makers decide to provide an instrument, they have control as to who gets one, and the ability of the client to pay may not even be the maker's most important deciding factor.  What does that do to the secondary market (when a player is selling an instrument), when that secondary market may be the only way someone who can't get on the maker's waiting list can get an instrument?

[Carl Stross]

That they'd only give me back 40%?  Or that I keep buying cheap violins?

 

The 40%. Nothing wrong with buying cheap violins.

[Rue]

Oh good!  I was worried there for a minute...

 

Rue,

You really can't expect the pricing variation over time of your factory violin and that of a Sam Z to be parallel.  Those two instruments are just not comparable in terms of market forces. 

 

...

I was joking (about 'used' violins)...

 

...but not about mine being for sale still!!!!

[David Hart]

You are ommiting one other factor relating to the price. Sam's violins are not simply store-bought items. The waiting list is what, four, five years? You are suggesting the pricing is simply the fact that this woman plays the specific violin, but fact is its not. And the truth of the matter is if it sells privately whatever it sells for will set a precedent.

 

I'm also going to point out that Sam didn't post the violin for sale, nor does he ever have input on internet forums. I'm not sure whats not to understand about giving respect to living people. He's a living maker, when we discuss the value or worth of his violins of course it has the potential to be damaging to his reputation. Someone with a fine knowledge of the industry may be aware what is and is not appropriate to say, but give someone a little bit of knowledge...         Jeoffrey was saying tread carefully. Probably in the hopes of making the job of moderating a little bit easier in the future!

 

For some a price might seem to be absorbitant, for others it might be good value.

[Carl Stross]

Oh good!  I was worried there for a minute...

 

 

 

I never bought a violin as an "investment" - I bought them because they were either dirt cheap or I liked how they sound. This way it is close to impossible to be "taken". 

And twice I got lucky : once somebody needed money desperately and once I bought an entire household and the violin came with it. For normal usage, the difference

between a Strad and a well made older violin EXPERTLY adjusted is insignificant and inconsequential.

[Carl Stross]

 

 

I'm also going to point out that Sam didn't post the violin for sale, nor does he ever have input on internet forums. I'm not sure whats not to understand about giving respect to living people. He's a living maker, when we discuss the value or worth of his violins of course it has the potential to be damaging to his reputation. 

 

Sorry but I don't quite get your point. He's selling violins, is all over the Internet, YT etc, quite a bit of publicity and so on. To have his products discussed , price included, is absolutely normal. TOYOTA does not mind...   Or you're never complaining about the price of cars, electricity, food, medical, child care etc etc ?

[David Hart]

Defamation. Look it up.

[BassClef]

Defamation. Look it up.

 

What about defamation? Different countries have different laws and standards, what exactly are you suggesting? I am very familiar with defamation laws in the USA and nothing in this thread comes close.

 

I personally find nothing out of line in this thread besides people directly or indirectly calling other forum members names.

[Carl Stross]

Defamation. Look it up.

 

"""Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism."""

 

Done. 

 

Now, would you care to explain why discussing the "appropriateness" , fairness etc of price for close to any goods or services around is OK but not when it comes to violins by living makers ?  Are they "special" ?

[Violadamore]

Amazing amount of speculation and discussion here over what looks to me suspiciously like a price set by a "back of the envelope" or "dinner napkin" calculation applying a fudge factor assumed for 10 years of inflation to the 2003 Tarisio result for the Stern violin on the naive assumption that the result was defining the curve for future prices rather than a "flyer"..  I'd be surprised if there's much more to it than that.

[David Hart]

Carl, I am not going to explain what I consider fairly basic business ethics. Or why it should apply on internet forums. Work it out yourself.

[Michael Appleman]

The story of a talented violinist having ups and downs in his or her career is usually moving, and I'm impressed at Dylana Jensen's recent "comeback" in terms of attention drawn to her. She is a fine violinist and has had quite a roller-coaster career, and I can only congratulate her on getting people to talk about her on an international level after many years teaching and performing on a relatively "modest" scale.

 

Her story of being "lost" after giving back her loaner Del Gesu and until she "found" her Zygmuntowitz is poetic and moving, and if it got her articles in forums, newspapers and other media, it was a good story to tell. Posting the miracle violin that "saved" her career for sale for a high price is also extremely effective because we're all talking about her again! 

 

Acheiving and maintaining a high level career is a complicated and unpredictable business, and it's not always just a matter of playing great consistantly. It's also rarely a question of having a "miracle" violin, but getting a good buzz going can help draw attention and get things jump-started. If things don't take on self-sustaing momemtum this time, she could always try getting in a catfight with Kim Kardashian...

[martin swan]

OK Martin.  Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Yes.  Toss it out in public, and one should expect public comment.  Agreed.  This is a fact, no matter if I agree that it's dignified, or professional, or not.

 

I think you've probably noticed I've refrained from comment on items for sale as I feel it's not appropriate as a professional, and I've pointed this out.  I feel the appropriate way for a professional to behave is as a professional.  I understand that some may differ in their views of what that "looks like".  I think I've been clear about what it looks like to me.

 

In addition, this thread brings into the discussion a living professional maker, who has set a price for his own goods.  What happens within any marketplace for those goods once they are owned by another sometimes has little to do with that maker's original price.  Yes, high resale figures could prove (and probably have proved) to benefit the maker in terms of market and demand... but it's the market that decides the fate of the item.  I do not wish that a discussion of a resale here effects any living maker's reputation.

 

I note a good amount of speculation and comparison on this thread that I can find fault with, and some which I do not.  I don't believe some who have presented these market comparisons understand the data as well as they might think... or may not have looked at, or have had access, to all of it.  I'm not sure most here really do understand how and how much provenance affects the value of any particular instrument... and to better understand it, I would think instruments that have already gone through the sale process one or more times, rather than one that was in the process of being offered, would better illustrate the phenomenon anyway.

 

Clearer?

 

Clearer yes, thanks.

I am obliged to appreciate your depth of feeling on the matter  - it's not often you raise the subject of professionalism, but it's an arguing technique guaranteed to raise the ante!

Professionalism is a very broad term, and it would have to be interpreted in accordance with what someone's actually doing for a living. I understand that as an appraiser and an expert, you are required to maintain the highest standard of confidentiality, and are often in situations where information or expertise becomes extremely valuable.

However, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to impose those standards on the whole of Maestronet.

Equally, Roger's reservation about discussions of pricing amongst living makers is one that I would argue against.

Maestronet isn't a forum for new makers, nor for violin dealers or appraisers or players or armchair violin enthusiasts. It's for all of these people, and discussion is at best going to be unpredictable, at worst very messy. 

 

I simply cannot understand why a maker shouldn't be public about their prices. Many are - Christophe Landon is, and yet I feel I'm not allowed to pass on information he would be very happy to share. Same with Michael Darnton, same with many other less well-known contemporary makers whose prices I'm familiar with. What's the big deal? On a forum which involves makers, dealers in antique instruments, dealers in new violins, and players of both, it seems a very strange line to draw in the sand. If you set a price you don't have to be able to justify it, the market justifies it. If you don't wish to reveal your prices fine, but if the information is in the public domain you can't stifle discussion on a broad-ranging forum of interested parties. 

 

The point about the pricing of instruments in relation to their previous ownership is actually the one that interests me, but I'm very happy to discuss it outside the context of this particular violin. My own view is that the talismanic power of previous owner's name is akin to a religious belief, turning the instrument into a fetish object. The violin is invested with some of the brilliance of its previous owner, and brings power to the new owner. This power is almost always invoked in the context of famous players who have died, though it also works for players of great stature at the end of illustrious careers. This power is at its most effective in the context of a sale. and the possibility of acquiring that power. We could discuss this in the context of any number of recent sales - new violins such as Chaudiere or Sam Z that belonged to Ricci or Norbert Brainin, Isaac Stern's Sam Z, old Italians like Maazel's Guadagnini etc. I am not for a minute doubting that this power is genuine, nor am I suggesting that it should be played down.

Does this work for the violins of contemporary musicians? We could talk specifically about a well known player's "circle of Michele Angelo Bergonzi" which was sold at auction in October ... who knows? It sold within the estimate, but the estimate seemed to be allowing for a bit of talisman-waving. My own first thought (perhaps the churlish cynicism of a dealer) was to wonder why the player was selling it. I think the talismanic power is reduced when an object is discarded, but my criteria for buying are probably idiosyncratic.

[Rue]

Amazing amount of speculation and discussion here over what looks to me suspiciously like a price set by a "back of the envelope" or "dinner napkin" calculation applying a fudge factor assumed for 10 years of inflation to the 2003 Tarisio result for the Stern violin on the naive assumption that the result was defining the curve for future prices rather than a "flyer"..  I'd be surprised if there's much more to it than that.

 

I was wondering that too...but then figured if you were going to sell something for that much money (and I'm sure that amount is considered a lot of money by any standards) that you would have done a little research first? 

 

Also...I still don't think a discussion forum is the ideal venue to list an expensive item for sale.  Although I suppose you only need one person to see the listing and buy it...

 

I wonder what percentage of violinists and 'armchair enthusiasts' actually read/lurk/take part on discussion fourms? 

[Jeffrey Holmes]

Clearer yes, thanks.

I am obliged to appreciate your depth of feeling on the matter  - it's not often you raise the subject of professionalism, but it's an arguing technique guaranteed to raise the ante!

 

1) Professionalism is a very broad term, and it would have to be interpreted in accordance with what someone's actually doing for a living. I understand that as an appraiser and an expert, you are required to maintain the highest standard of confidentiality, and are often in situations where information or expertise becomes extremely valuable.

 

2) However, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to impose those standards on the whole of Maestronet.

Equally, Roger's reservation about discussions of pricing amongst living makers is one that I would argue against.

Maestronet isn't a forum for new makers, nor for violin dealers or appraisers or players or armchair violin enthusiasts. It's for all of these people, and discussion is at best going to be unpredictable, at worst very messy. 

 

3) I simply cannot understand why a maker shouldn't be public about their prices. Many are - Christophe Landon is, and yet I feel I'm not allowed to pass on information he would be very happy to share. Same with Michael Darnton, same with many other less well-known contemporary makers whose prices I'm familiar with. What's the big deal?

 

Hi Martin;

 

Excuse the short-ish response, but I have my hands rather full today.

 

Three things generally.  

 

1) I was referring to professionals in the industry.  Dealers particularly, but appraisers, restorers and consultants as well.  In my view, that's not too broad a group.  It really doesn't matter what "level" we're talking about.  Though the stakes may get higher as the price goes up, professionalism at any level looks similar to me.

 

2) I haven't "imposed" standards.  If I were to do that, this thread would disappear.  I may have suggested we should have some, and I did voice my opinion, suggested that at least the pros here consider what standards they live by, and suggested in doing so that I may have limits as to how far I might let this go.  Frankly, I think that's reasonable.

 

3) Here, I think you misunderstand the specific issue I am raising.  We are discussing a maker's price mixed and married to an owners asking price.  I think everyone here knows what Sam charges, more or less.  Same for Burgess, Hargrave, etc, etc.... and if by chance one doesn't know, it's not difficult to find out.  When mixed with a non-professional's asking price, high or low, the water cannot help but get murky.

 

I agree with Roger that discussing and comparing prices of living makers could certainly get dicy without some direction/limits/rules, but as I mentioned in my post above, it's NOT a conversation I'm completely opposed to having as long as there is some sensitivity involved... though I would certainly not wish it to happen on a thread that is already mixing after market asking prices with a maker's own bench price.

 

Concerning provenance: Sure.  Another thread, another time.  Probably an interesting discussion.

 

BTW: One member thought I was referring to you, Martin, with my dog reference in a previous post.  I'm sure you know I wasn't.  For those who may have misunderstood, I am referring to those who may pretend to have a professional status, or expertise, that they do not... but post with authority.  The quote is from a cartoon.  Unfortunately, the internet itself can't and doesn't "weigh" opinions... so information tends to come at the reader as an unfiltered "wave".

[martin swan]

OK thanks, I understand everything and appreciate you taking the time to respond.

In case anyone was confused, I wasn't discussing the maker's asking price or questioning it in any way. I was questioning the reasoning behind the obvious mark-up. I expressed the view that this was based on a bit of a misunderstanding of how prices are formulated, and that seems to be the general view.

I can understand that some might think it inappropriate to comment on a private individual's asking price, but in these circumstances I think it's pretty fair.

[AtlVcl]

I think Sam has the most to gain if this fiddle really does bring its asking price, so I doubt either he OR Dylana would regret the issue being discussed in public.   In the Internet age there's not a lot left that's really private anymore anyway, and indeed the best way to sell a violin is via word of mouth.

BTW, speaking of "word of mouth",  I have a very nice Fetique cello bow for sale for $50,000.  That's 3 times its estimate, but what the heck, apparently it doesn't hurt to ask.

[Violadamore]

I was wondering that too...but then figured if you were going to sell something for that much money (and I'm sure that amount is considered a lot of money by any standards) that you would have done a little research first? 

 

Also...I still don't think a discussion forum is the ideal venue to list an expensive item for sale.  Although I suppose you only need one person to see the listing and buy it...

 

I wonder what percentage of violinists and 'armchair enthusiasts' actually read/lurk/take part on discussion fourms? 

Considering a small list of probable intentions of the seller, I'd advise her to post a video offering the violin on You Tube, which she already uses.

[Carl Stross]

Amazing amount of speculation and discussion here over what looks to me suspiciously like a price set by a "back of the envelope" or "dinner napkin" calculation applying a fudge factor assumed for 10 years of inflation to the 2003 Tarisio result for the Stern violin on the naive assumption that the result was defining the curve for future prices rather than a "flyer"..  I'd be surprised if there's much more to it than that.

 

If only my accountant would be so clever....

[skiingfiddler]

 

In case anyone was confused, I wasn't discussing the maker's asking price or questioning it in any way. I was questioning the reasoning behind the obvious mark-up. I expressed the view that this was based on a bit of a misunderstanding of how prices are formulated, and that seems to be the general view.

 

 

Prices formulated by whom?

 

Let's get away from specifically this instance and look at, generally, purchasing an instrument from a well regarded, contemporary maker X whose instruments are in the hands of the best of professional players.  Looking at it from the buyer's perspective, what do I, as a buyer, have to do to get this maker to make me an instrument?  I have to have the money.  Let's assume that condition is met. 

 

I still have to meet an additional condition:  I have to quality as a client for this maker.  The maker may have chosen to limit her sales to only well established, professional violinists, a soloist or player in a major professional performing group.  That condition eliminates me as a client.  (This scenario of not qualifying as a client even while having the money does happen; it happened to me.)

 

Getting back to the scenario, even if maker X had accepted me as a client, that would have put me on a waiting list, possibly years long.

 

What other option do I have if I want an instrument from maker X?  Let's assume I discover that a player wants to sell his maker X violin, but the asking price is very high.  Should I pay it?  Well, it's the only way I'll get a maker X violin, and I'll get it immediately, not in years.  What's an acceptable price for me?  Only I, the buyer, can know that number.  Only I know what my cash reserves are and how badly I want that fiddle.