So exactly what IS the minimum value for a good factory instrument?

[David Beard]

34 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Hi David

while i think you have provided a very fair summary of the non-argument that we are all getting in a lather over, I would rather question your opposition of”factory” and “single maker”.

I think we have to accept that many “single maker” violins were, up until very recently, the product of a team. Equally, many “factory” violins were, up until very recently, the product of a rather similar kind of team.

And of course, so many violins which we venerate now were originally shitted out in 2 shakes of a lamb’s tail. 

 

 

You are of course entirely right.  As I say, that is just a powerful emotional bias I have.  Probably more relevant to my own personal choices as a maker.

However, an individual can make indifferently and NOT provide this kind of satisfaction I require.  And a team (probably small) can work under a unifying leader and provide this sense of humanity in the work.

[Rue]

[Rue]

26 minutes ago, Jeffrey Holmes said:

Can someone please explain to me exactly how we got here in ten pages (so I don't have to read them all)?

I believe we stated with: "So what would you say is the bottom value for an old factory instrument in good shape that is fully carved, fully lined, fully blocked, made with good wood, and varnished with good varnish?"

I wouldn't attempt an answer.... but I just don't see how this all landed where it did... 

We were bored? 

[Violadamore]

57 minutes ago, Jeffrey Holmes said:

Can someone please explain to me exactly how we got here in ten pages (so I don't have to read them all)?

I believe we stated with: "So what would you say is the bottom value for an old factory instrument in good shape that is fully carved, fully lined, fully blocked, made with good wood, and varnished with good varnish?"

I wouldn't attempt an answer.... but I just don't see how this all landed where it did... 

Besides Rue's succinct analysis, it appears to me that serious attempts to answer the question slowly gave way to "let's feed the troll fertilizer", as the serious answers were ignored repeatedly.

[Danube Fiddler]

31 minutes ago, David Beard said:

A reduced summary of Danube's basic claim:  various elements of valuation trace back to long term historical evaluations of sound, and some aspects of value and/or saleability relate to sound more directly and immediately.

Thanks for the attempt of summarizing !  The first part of your sentence is quite o.k. - the second part I would formulate a little bit different :   

The actual sound-evaluation in the single instrument approximately has to fit the longterm evaluated averaged soundquality of the referred maker ( =~ monetary main - value of maker ). If the actual sound is obviously and considerable ( also after substraction of test-uncertainties ) of lesser quality than the monetary value would let assume, then this instrument looses value in a considerable amount ( until 30 % or even more ). The market-mechanism I have described. 

51 minutes ago, David Beard said:

Specific value of a particular instrument for sale is only minimally and indirectly related to sound.

I would say, this isn´t  completely true. We have to regard :

1) A historical sound-evaluation is always a group-evaluation ( many instruments in history, but sometimes also highly influenced by only few instruments played by important soloists ) Therefore it only gives averaged sound-values as result. The really interesting question is, how much is the standard-deviation in the group - that means how much the single instruments differ from the mean-value of sound-quality. This question is not in the main focus of historical evaluation.  So we have this interesting situation : A) we have mean-values of sound-quality ( =~ averaged monetary values ) by historical evaluation with broad and big dataset, therefore quite reliable ( in average !)   but B ) we don´t know how much typically the actual sound-quality in single instruments can differ from the mean-value  and last C ) we have an actual sound-evalution by own tests under very limited conditions and therefore considerable reduced meaning ( depending on test quality and resources ).

So a lot depends on two things : 

- the question about the typical deviations of sound-quality ( if we assume, they would be high, then the meaning of the historical evaluation looses importance and the actual own sound-test becomes more meaningful )

- is the buyer able, to create and perform good tests with sufficient support by experienced musicians and infrastructure  ? ( if he is not able, then only the historical evaluation remains and becomes more important )

So we see, that the answers of market-participants to these questions as also the concrete circumstances in the actual trade-situation play a role.

What do musicians think : 

1) deviations are rather high ( instruments of the same maker often sound quite different [ e.g. bad vs. good Strads ]

2) actual achieved prices of instruments made by the same maker differ highly, not always by different conditions ( this is a strong indication, that historical makers produced instruments of quite differing quality, often also to see in the wood-choice )

So the final conclusion is, that the (averaged) historical sound-evaluation (monetary mean-value) has only limited meaning in a single instrument. This is one of the reasons, why prices of the same maker highly differ. Because the historical mean-value has not enough meaning in the single instrument,  it is very reasonable to raise the own efforts of actual evaluation- naturally mainly in sound.  However in a complete way. 

What is needed : ( besides the authenticity - question, without it the historical evaluation doesn´t work) 

1) good condition ( when it is not good, something must be done - and we don´t know the sound after it ) So a good condition guarantees, that ( expensive and sound-critical ) repairs are not needed a longer time and a fine sound will be continous and additional damages under the strong forces of strings will probably not appear.

2) an actual fine sound-quality in the actual instrument - fitting to the expectations for the referred maker, evaluated in a complex and fine sound - evaluation, so well-done as possible.

If not both is fulfilled, the price normally is falling considerable - while a lot of circumstances in the trade-situation naturally always can produce a lot of suprises.

All that is not new, was not invented by me - and is done ( if the " little club" admits or not, doesn´t matter )

[Danube Fiddler]

9 hours ago, martin swan said:

And yet you are judging its value without hearing it ...?? That seems to undermine your entire argument.

Did I judge it ? I referred the ( very low ) auction estimates compared with a relatively nice appearence and the expection of a sound  ( according to your claims) not lesser than the expected sound of your currently offered J.B. Guadagnini or any other great instrument. I just told about expectations. A hearing/playing test normally would be necessary - however this violin is so cheap, that you could buy it without hearing and use it as furniture, if it should really not sound equal to your Guadagnini.

[martin swan]

Violins are priced acvording to their “degree of separation” from Stradivari and the classical Cremonese school, in historical and geographical terms, and with no reference to sound quailty.

[martin swan]

11 minutes ago, Danube Fiddler said:

Did I judge it ? I referred the ( very low ) auction estimates compared with a relatively nice appearence and the expection of a sound  ( according to your claims) not lesser than the expected sound of your currently offered J.B. Guadagnini or any other great instrument. I just told about expectations. A hearing/playing test normally would be necessary - however this violin is so cheap, that you could buy it without hearing and use it as furniture, if it should really not sound equal to your Guadagnini.

Pretty much no-one will buy a 36.2 cm early Mirecourt trade violin. However great it sounds ....

Strange but true.

[David Beard]

26 minutes ago, Danube Fiddler said:

Thanks for the attempt of summarizing !  The first part of your sentence is quite o.k. - the second part I would formulate a little bit different :   

The actual sound-evaluation in the single instrument approximately has to fit the longterm evaluated averaged soundquality of the referred maker ( =~ monetary main - value of maker ). If the actual sound is obviously and considerable ( also after substraction of test-uncertainties ) of lesser quality than the monetary value would let assume, then this instrument looses value in a considerable amount ( until 30 % or even more ). The market-mechanism I have described. 

I would say, this isn´t  completely true. We have to regard :

1) A historical sound-evaluation is always a group-evaluation ( many instruments in history, but sometimes also highly influenced by only few instruments played by important soloists ) Therefore it only gives averaged sound-values as result. The really interesting question is, how much is the standard-deviation in the group - that means how much the single instruments differ from the mean-value of sound-quality. This question is not in the main focus of historical evaluation.  So we have this interesting situation : A) we have mean-values of sound-quality ( =~ averaged monetary values ) by historical evaluation with broad and big dataset, therefore quite reliable ( in average !)   but B ) we don´t know how much typically the actual sound-quality in single instruments can differ from the mean-value  and last C ) we have an actual sound-evalution by own tests under very limited conditions and therefore considerable reduced meaning ( depending on test quality and resources ).

So a lot depends on two things : 

- the question about the typical deviations of sound-quality ( if we assume, they would be high, then the meaning of the historical evaluation looses importance and the actual own sound-test becomes more meaningful )

- is the buyer able, to create and perform good tests with sufficient support by experienced musicians and infrastructure  ? ( if he is not able, then only the historical evaluation remains and becomes more important )

So we see, that the answers of market-participants to these questions as also the concrete circumstances in the actual trade-situation play a role.

What do musicians think : 

1) deviations are rather high ( instruments of the same maker often sound quite different [ e.g. bad vs. good Strads ]

2) actual achieved prices of instruments made by the same maker differ highly, not always by different conditions ( this is a strong indication, that historical makers produced instruments of quite differing quality, often also to see in the wood-choice )

So the final conclusion is, that the (averaged) historical sound-evaluation (monetary mean-value) has only limited meaning in a single instrument. This is one of the reasons, why prices of the same maker highly differ. Because the historical mean-value has not enough meaning in the single instrument,  it is very reasonable to raise the own efforts of actual evaluation- naturally mainly in sound.  However in a complete way. 

What is needed : ( besides the authenticity - question, without it the historical evaluation doesn´t work) 

1) good condition ( when it is not good, something must be done - and we don´t know the sound after it ) So a good condition guarantees, that ( expensive and sound-critical ) repairs are not needed a longer time and a fine sound will be continous and additional damages under the strong forces of strings will probably not appear.

2) an actual fine sound-quality in the actual instrument - fitting to the expectations for the referred maker, evaluated in a complex and fine sound - evaluation, so well-done as possible.

If not both is fulfilled, the price normally is falling considerable - while a lot of circumstances in the trade-situation naturally always can produce a lot of suprises.

All that is not new, was not invented by me - and is done ( if the " little club" admits or not, doesn´t matter )

Ignore button.

[Danube Fiddler]

28 minutes ago, martin swan said:

Violins are priced acvording to their “degree of separation” from Stradivari and the classical Cremonese school, in historical and geographical terms, and with no reference to sound quailty.

Why should one take Stradivari and the classical Cremonese school as reference - please don´t tell me, it would be, because Stradivari is mainly suspected to have built the best-sounding violins in history.

Ah, now I believe to understand : Stradivari and the Cremonese school built the best-conditioned instruments of all times. Clearly the smallest numbers of cracks, smallest numbers of post-patches, the lowest erosion of varnish - finally I understand.

[Danube Fiddler]

9 minutes ago, David Beard said:

Ignore button.

One more member of the "little club" ? !  Good idea - you will be on my ignore list from now.

[David Beard]

20 minutes ago, Danube Fiddler said:

One more member of the "little club" ? !  Good idea - you will be on my ignore list from now.

I'm only teasing. But hope you'll look to absorb part of the position opposing you, instead of just digging in deeper.

You say many interesting things. Isn't that more engaging than denying a balance in positions to the point of just being combative?

 

[Andreas Preuss]

Didn't read everything in this thread so I might be repeating what other contributors already wrote. 

Any price in our world of market economics depends on supply and demand plus the place where it is sold. This applies to the cheapest Chinese factory instrument to the most expensive violin on this planet let it be the messiah Strad or the cannon Del Gesu. 

So if you take a your 'good factory instrument' to a place where no one else offers such a thing and 100 milionaires are waiting to buy one, it might beat the price of a Strad. 

Exaggerated example. However this applies to normal sales environment as well and has little to do with how much labour was put in it. So if you hit educated buyers the price will be lower than if you hit uneducated buyers because educated buyers will argue with you about corner blocks bass bars varnish and other things to lower the price. 

I once made a varnish test on a white Chinese factory instrument and when I showed it to a player in Japan he asked 'how much is it? $10000?' (I should have sold it for that price ;-)

This shows as well that the 'value perception' of an object can be triggered. (John Lott knew all this stuff)

If you are intending to find out a minimal value and buy on e-bay everything below that price, good luck!

In an ironic sense I would say at least the equivalent price of firewood for the same weight. 

 

[Rue]

Buyer perception is huge.

I'm very interested in marketing - and know some of the tricks. But even so - I am very susceptible to certain marketing ploys.

"Hurry! Almost sold out!" gets my heart pumping.

Wonder if Strad started that?

[Jeffrey Holmes]

2 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Besides Rue's succinct analysis, it appears to me that serious attempts to answer the question slowly gave way to "let's feed the troll fertilizer", as the serious answers were ignored repeatedly.

Thanks Violadamore!

I scanned through the pages.  Some nice answers, some feuding, and an excessive amount of pontificating.  Let's all move on, shall we?