Who are the most undervalued contemporary builders?

[jacklinks]

This is a spin-off of “the most expensive contemporary instruments” thread.....

Who are the most undervalued contemporary violin makers?

[Violadamore]

41 minutes ago, jacklinks said:

This is a spin-off of “the most expensive contemporary instruments” thread.....

Who are the most undervalued contemporary violin makers?

Oh, that's easy.  Probably around 30,000 Chinese.  No joke

[PhilipKT]

That’s a far more difficult question to answer.

I would say David Caron.

:-)

[Andreas Preuss]

11 hours ago, jacklinks said:

Who are the most undervalued contemporary violin makers?

This touches the sensitive question 'why can't they sell for a higher price in the first place.' 

If you really go on a sort of Warren Buffet scheme, who tried to figure out criteria which companies will increase  in future their profit, you might get some interesting answers. (Probably you get as well an answer why some violin makers are able to sell at very high prices.)

So to fill this thread with some contents I would suggest to think about criteria supporting the term 'undervalued' first, instead of blasting out names of contemporary makers without any reason. 

 

[joerobson]

12 hours ago, jacklinks said:

This is a spin-off of “the most expensive contemporary instruments” thread.....

Who are the most undervalued contemporary violin makers?

Hmmm.

Isabelle Wilbeaux

Itzel Avila

Todd Goldenberg

Chris Ilbricht

Aubrey Alexander

Alkis Rappas

Joe Thrift

To name a few.....

on we go,

Joe

 

[Michael Szyper]

25 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

So to fill this thread with some contents I would suggest to think about criteria supporting the term 'undervalued' first, instead of blasting out names of contemporary makers without any reason. 

 

Similar to the other thread with the most expensive violins, as you said it‘s all about marketing and psychology.  The first thought one has about value is: To score a luthier, i calculate his deviation from the average violin price and the average building quality. 

The main problem with criteria of ‚undervalued‘ is that you have to compare a linear value named ‚money‘ with a non-linear value as ‚sound‘ and ‚building quality‘.

 

[jacklinks]

8 hours ago, PhilipKT said:

I would say David Caron.

I just googled his bio, and he seems to have an interesting history. Looks like he made less than 70 violins, so I suspect you would never see one come up for sale. Same for cellos and violas .... very low numbers.

[Salve Håkedal]

..

(Sorry,! For some reason the font became huge, and I don't want that.)

[Don Noon]

56 minutes ago, Michael Szyper said:

The main problem with criteria of ‚undervalued‘ is that you have to compare a linear value named ‚money‘ with a non-linear value as ‚sound‘ and ‚building quality‘.

Then there's the question of how to adjust for the maker's location and/or history.  Although I feel like I am on the low side of US makers, if I was Chinese and living in China, making the exact same thing I do now, that would be a world of difference.  

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, joerobson said:

Hmmm.

Isabelle Wilbeaux

Itzel Avila

Todd Goldenberg

Chris Ilbricht

Aubrey Alexander

Alkis Rappas

Joe Thrift

To name a few.....

on we go,

Joe

 

Nice list. 

For which reason?

 

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, Michael Szyper said:

Similar to the other thread with the most expensive violins, as you said it‘s all about marketing and psychology.  The first thought one has about value is: To score a luthier, i calculate his deviation from the average violin price and the average building quality. 

The main problem with criteria of ‚undervalued‘ is that you have to compare a linear value named ‚money‘ with a non-linear value as ‚sound‘ and ‚building quality‘.

 

Therefore I guess the first criteria is consistency of quality. I think this is a lesson one can learn from successful makers. Consistency seems to be more desirable than reaching the stars in the first place. 

[Pate Bliss]

23 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

 if I was Chinese and living in China, making the exact same thing I do now, that would be a world of difference.  

What do you mean? 

I think for a formula, quality over price would work to rank undervalued.  Price is easy, and you'd expect quality to be by now...

[joerobson]

36 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Nice list. 

For which reason?

 

Underpriced for the high quality of the instruments.

[PASEWICZ]

I would have to say that some of the most undervalued violins are getting pretty top prices.  If you look at things from a long term perspective, quite a few of the top living makers really are creating impressive works that the more you look at them, the more you see interesting; I believe those are the instruments history will judge favorably.  Unfortunately, anyone copying works from earlier makers I find far less intriguing...although I admire the skill it takes to create these instruments, I am not so much interested in how a living maker interprets the contributions of an earlier artist.  

[David Burgess]

14 hours ago, jacklinks said:

Who are the most undervalued contemporary violin makers?

 

2 hours ago, joerobson said:

Hmmm.

Yup, odd name, but he's amazing!

[Pate Bliss]

36 minutes ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

I would have to say that some of the most undervalued violins are getting pretty top prices.... I believe those are the instruments history will judge favorably. 

If an instrument isn't pricey, it isn't likely to live long enough for history to judge it.

[joerobson]

27 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

 

Yup, odd name, but he's amazing!

But she is quite thoughtful.

[Twinpipe]

That's easy. Luis Claudio Manfio. His new instruments sound as close to a DG as you can get.

[David Burgess]

8 minutes ago, joerobson said:

But she is quite thoughtful.

Very fetching, but definitely male.

[Andreas Preuss]

17 minutes ago, joerobson said:

Underpriced for the high quality of the instruments.

Not that I think you picked bad makers but 'high quality' is largely subjective. 

It seems that from buyers perspective 'high quality' comes from other sources than the work itself. One thing which becomes a factor is if a fellow player or better a famous player uses an instrument of the maker. Some of the most expensive makers found early in their career a famous soloist as patron for their work. 

Another important factor I see is the involvement in any serious acoustical research. 

Both lead to media attention in one way or the other.

'undervalued' makers might do the same but don't find it necessary to expose themselves so much. 

[Alex l. Reza]

I am not sure if those listed here are "undervalued" they do great work and think their instruments sell/retail for around 15K and above. When talking dollar amount, what is undervalued?

 

[Andreas Preuss]

1 hour ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

I would have to say that some of the most undervalued violins are getting pretty top prices.  If you look at things from a long term perspective, quite a few of the top living makers really are creating impressive works that the more you look at them, the more you see interesting; I believe those are the instruments history will judge favorably.  Unfortunately, anyone copying works from earlier makers I find far less intriguing...although I admire the skill it takes to create these instruments, I am not so much interested in how a living maker interprets the contributions of an earlier artist.  

Isn't it more about the sound than about how a violin looks like?

Gossip amongst players is IMO really the price building force. 

 

 

[PASEWICZ]

5 minutes ago, Andreas Preuss said:

Isn't it more about the sound than about how a violin looks like?

Gossip amongst players is IMO really the price building force. 

 

 

Not for me, this also gets to the point Alex made.  I am looking as "undervalued" in the context of decades down the road, what is the instrument's significance and how has the market judged the maker.  I see dealers pricing instruments based on who made it, not on sound.

[Don Noon]

57 minutes ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

I am looking as "undervalued" in the context of decades down the road, what is the instrument's significance and how has the market judged the maker.  I see dealers pricing instruments based on who made it, not on sound.

It all depends on one's interpretation of "value".  

If you're focused on price now vs price later, that's one thing, and incorporates more factors and different weighting than the value as a musician's tool, or as an object of craftsmanship.  Selling value has some chance of being objective, i.e. what it can be sold for.  The other factors are totally subjective and therefore varies far more with who you ask.

[PhilipKT]

2 hours ago, Jerry Pasewicz said:

I would have to say that some of the most undervalued violins are getting pretty top prices.  If you look at things from a long term perspective, quite a few of the top living makers really are creating impressive works that the more you look at them, the more you see interesting; I believe those are the instruments history will judge favorably.  Unfortunately, anyone copying works from earlier makers I find far less intriguing...although I admire the skill it takes to create these instruments, I am not so much interested in how a living maker interprets the contributions of an earlier artist.  

That’s an excellent point. Is it better to be an excellent copyist, or original? I vote for the latter, but I don’t denigrate the former .