Why does copy cost more than original? [Archive]

Bob DeVellis

Mar-05-2005, 7:24am

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to Steve Gilchrist or anyone else, I was struck by the price difference between the Gilchrist F-4 highlighted on the Cafe front page and a really nice original Gibson F-4. Why the difference? I think the argument can be made (although opinions will differ, undoubtedly) that a Gilchrist F-5 approaches the quality of an original Loar F-5, which is worth a ga-jillion dollars. But if a really, really nice F-4 is worth, say, $6500, why is the Gilchrist worth 10 grand more? Has Steve exceeded the standard in some way? Is the Gilchrist a different animal and somehow better? This F-4, by the way, looks to be very much a copy of an original. It doesn't have an elevated fingerboard, for example. The ad at Elderly even touts the, "tortoise plastic pickguard (with some deterioration - just like an original!)"

So what gives? Is the price unreasonably inflated? Are originals unreasonably underpriced? Is there really 10 grand more value in the Gil?

Share your thoughts.

John Flynn

Mar-05-2005, 8:14am

While market forces set sale prices, asking prices are completely at the whim of the seller. We will have to see if it actually sells at 16.5. But assuming it does, there are a couple of factors with that mandolin. First, there is the "celebrity factor." Mike Compton has been playing his new Gil F-4 in public very prominently lately. When celebs play a certain brand, the prices go up. The second factor is brand positioning. People expect to pay more for a Gil than a vintage Gibson, other than a Loar. The way to think about that is to compare paying $16,500 for a used Gil and having it right away, versus paying whatever he is getting now, $25,000 - $35,000, and waiting two or three years. Compared that way, it seems like a bargain.

Third, Gilchrist has a reputation for never producing anything by great mandos, although I have to say that a well-broken-in Gil F-5 I played once lost out on a side-by-side comparision with a brand new Collings MF-5, IMHO. However, while many of the vintage F-4s are fantastic, I think some of the best sounding mandolins ever made, some others are not so great and some are even falling apart. So buying one is more of risk than the Gil. Finally, there is brand identification. My guess is that someone who already owns a Gil F-5 may be more likely than other buyers to buy that F-4 to make a "set." That kind of buyer is used to spending that kind of money and has already "hitched thier wagon" to that brand.

Chris Baird

Mar-05-2005, 8:16am

Just my opinion but I think this won't be the case forever. Now is a good time to buy a vintage F4.

Steven Stone

Mar-05-2005, 8:22am

I would have to say from my experience a Gilchrist oval hole IS a better mandolin than a vintage Gibson.

I owned a Gilchrist with A-2Z specifications that far outclassed any vintage A-2Z I've played in terms of volume, depth and complexity of tone, playability, fit and finish, and condition.

Many vintage Gibson oval holes exhibit some degree of top sinking, and many need extensive brace work, fret work and neck work to make them into fully functional instruments. If you are fussy about intonation vintage Gibsons will also need a complete refretting and perhaps a new fretboard.

I think even Charlie and Joe at Gibson would admit that any Gilchrist made in the last couple of years exhibits more precise build quality than a vast majority of vintage Gibsons, regardless of the model.

Whether a Gilchrist oval is worth 16K is a function of the current marketplace, not their intrinsic value (which may be even greater than that given their rarity an the fact that Gilchrist no longer makes them).

Bob A

Mar-05-2005, 8:30am

The Gilchrist/Gibson dichotomy is not the only one. A good Lyon & Healy style A runs about 3500 on the vintage market. The copies made by Rigel (and others, I believe) are considerably more. This presumably reflects increased labor costs and cost of materials. Whether computer-driven robot "luthiers" will bring the cost per unit down seems doubtful.

Semi-slave labor from the orient could reduce the cost for decent examples of the instruments, but there is a learning curve, and you have to sell the early unrefined instruments before you get to the point where the quality is comparable to the originals.

You have a limited market. Alas, not everyone wants a mandolin; we all know about "little guitars" and "ukuleles". Half the population doesn't even know what they are. This also has an impact. Rigel is not going to mass-produce L&H copies, the market can't absorb them. If it weren't for bluegrass, we probably wouldn't even have this website.

And F4s are not typically bluegrass instruments either, despite their history in the music. So the demand is not that strong, despite how you, or you, or I myself, would really like an F4.

Demand among those who know is high for Gilchrist instruments, at least relative to the supply. You want an F4, you pay F4 prices. You want a Gil, add 10 large. Value, in this case, is more than tone, playability, and intrinsic musical worth. It's about cachet. Timex versus Rolex versus Breguet. They all tell you what time it is, but they speak much louder about other things, don't they? (And it's not just branding. A LOT of skill and expertise goes into making a really fine mechanical timepiece.)

All that said, I wouldn't mind having a Gil F4. I just can't afford it. (Sure I could, but then I wouldn't have all the other things that I enjoy at present. It's always a tradeoff, life.)

Rereading this loosely-connected reply makes me realise that the morning caffeine hasn't quite kicked in yet. And other posters have rung in with good points. Old instruments do need TLC, but not 10K worth. And insofar as sound goes, I've never even been in the same room as a Gil, so who am I to talk?

SternART

Mar-05-2005, 9:27am

I've found that the playability of a Gil F4 IMO is better than a vintage F4. Some aren't museum replicas & have what I consider a more playable neck shape and some have radiused boards. The F4 Gil's are also pretty rare, Steve hasn't
built all that many of them. And indeed it will probably go to a Gilchrist afficianado. I've played a few that were very good and a more recent one, just a few years old & it was a stellar instrument. YMMV

Will Kimble

Mar-05-2005, 9:37am

Just wanted to add that an F4 would take about the same amount of time to build as an F5, with similar materials cost. #So a builder needs to charge a comparable amount for a new F4 as he would charge for a new F5.

I understand that this is a used instrument, but I think some of these forces are still at work - especially when you consider that Gilchrist's order list has been closed for quite some time. #If they were available, you would have to pay about the same for a new Gil Model 4 as you would for a new Gil Model 5. #

Also wanted to add that the best oval hole mandolins I have played have been made by Stephen Gilchrist. #The tone is very traditional but the workmanship and playability are superior. #He is known for his F5s, but his oval holes might be even better...

Finally, I have heard it suggested that a simple rule of thumb to value Gilchrist oval holes is that they are worth about twice what the comparable Gibson is worth. #So a Loar-era F4 in comparable shape might be worth 6,500 - 7,500 at the moment, a fair price for the Gil might be 13-15K. #Not far from the asking price at Elderly. #There have been a lot of sales that support this idea, but it only works for oval holes - doesn't make much sense for f-hole As and Fs. #

Will Kimble

Spruce

Mar-05-2005, 10:08am

What Chris said....

I bought a Gil F4 back in the early 90's because I felt it would be a good investment, and that F4's would someday rule the world...

Thus far, I haven't changed my mind...

Professor PT

Mar-05-2005, 10:50am

I played Mike Compton's Gil F-4 when he was in town in December for a house concert. It sounded just like an old F-4; the playability and craftsmanship were better than vintage Gibsons though. I do like the patina of age that you get with a vintage instrument. If I could afford it, I'd love to have an old F-4.

kudzugypsy

Mar-05-2005, 12:26pm

i bet that is one swwwweeeet sounding mando!

as far as f2-f4 values, obviously there are far more out there than loar signed f5s. that has some effect on the price. it seems good condition f2-f4s arent that hard to run across. there are usually 1-2 on ebay at any given time. there has to be that scarcity of supply to really drive up the price. if there were 1500 loar signed instruments on the market, i doubt they would be selling for $150k.
players and collectors have said for YEARS that oval hole gibsons were underpriced, and although they have risen, they just dont seem to keep pace with the rest of the pack. gruhn has said often that they are far undervalued.

Brian Aldridge

Mar-05-2005, 5:31pm

Back in the early 80s, maybe late 70s, George Gruhn stated he would rather own five F4s than one Loar signed F5 as far as an investment was concerned. I think this was when what you paid for a Loar F5 would be about the same as what you would pay for five F4s. Let's say that the F4s are bringing $7500, then that would be a grand total of $37,500. Obviously, to this point, he was a tad off. I have that article around here somewhere....

Nick Triesch

Mar-05-2005, 6:23pm

Why does the Gil F4 cost $10,000 more than the real thing? Because a sucker is born every minute. Nick

Steven Stone

Mar-05-2005, 10:18pm

[Why does the Gil F4 cost $10,000 more than the real thing? Because a sucker is born every minute]

Nick, Nick, Nick......you just don't get it.

That's OK, enough other folks do get it.

Someday, you may get it too.

Money is only x's and o's, a Gilchrist is art, plain and simple.

Having a chance to be the custodian for however short your life may be of a great instrument is priceless, and cheap at whatever it costs.

Fred G

Mar-05-2005, 10:22pm

Bob, Thanks for starting this thread. I wondered the same thing when I saw it for sale.
I appreciate all the answers and points of view people had here. It will be interesting to see if it sells for that price.

Nick Triesch

Mar-05-2005, 10:39pm

Steven. Look, the Loar F5 is the mandolin of mandolins. A 23 F4 was also made to very high standards during the same period. The F4 was at one time the top of the Gibson line. I just think that the real thing would be the F4 that most folks would want if they could buy one. I sure would rather have a 23 Gibson F4 than a Gil. I know that Gilchrist are nice mandolins but The ones I have played were not outstanding. I remember a friend of mine had a Gil F5 and he was always ticked off because my Givins A type sounded so much better. He finally sold it. I guess if a person has a lot of cash and he wants to spend it on a F4 copy when the real deal is afordable is up to them. $8000 for a Gibson F4 sounds like a great deal to me. Nick

Steven Stone

Mar-06-2005, 9:00am

Nick, I've owned two Gilchrists. I own none right now, that should tell you how I vote with my own money.

That being said, I feel that oval hole Gilchrists are rare and very special instruments, rarer than f-hole Gils, and much rarer than oval-hole Gibsons. In the curent market, they command more than oval-hole Gibsons due to their rarity.

As to whether every oval-hole Gil is sonically superior to every oval-hole Gibson isn't the point. The one I owned was, but I'm not an oval-hole player, and the finish was so delicate that it made me nervous to play it, so I sold it.

Not every Gil is a killer, some, especially the earlier ones, are merely good, but not great. My F-style f-hole Gil had a number just under 500, it was beautiful, but its neck was uncomfortable for me and it didn't have the whomp I wanted. When a got a early flatiron Artist F (#88) I liked better I sold the Gil.

Still, the folks buying Gils aren't dummies, or suckers. They are usually experienced mando players who appreciate what a Gilchrist is and are willing to pay the going rate to have one. Are they wasting their money? I don't think so, even though I personally don't own a Gil, and have no intentions of seeking one out.

evanreilly

Mar-06-2005, 9:55am

Tony Williamson recently had a 1924 F-4 with a Virzi for sale at the asking price of $8.5K. I have a 1924 F-4 with a Virzi as well.
I have seen quite a few of Steve Gilchrist's mandolins to be comfortable feeling his luthier skills are equal across the board, namely from F-5 styles to F-4 styles.
I haven't sat, with my F-4 in hand to compare it with a similar model of Steve's manufacture. My F-4, when properly adjusted and set up, plays like a dream and has sound and tone that I just don't think any new instrument can possess.
However, I suspect his detailing and workmanship probably surpass the best of the F-4s from their peak years. That and, as Steve Stone noted, the extreme scarcity of Gilchrist F-4 style instruments accounts for the price differences.
Even so, I wouldn't trade my 1924 model for a new one; it would take 80-plus years for it to lose the new car smell......

djeffcoat

Mar-06-2005, 10:34am

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to compare a recently made Gilchrist F4 with a recently made Gibson F4 from the Gibson custom shop? What would Gibson charge to make an F4 copy today?

I don't think that what Gilchrist gets for his mandolins is unreasonable considering the quality of the instrument and the talents of the builder.

DJ

Links

Mar-06-2005, 11:01am

When negotiating with a "government" negotiator over the fee to provide a design of a golf course for a military base a few years back, I accused the negotiator of wanting to base my fee on the cost of the paper and ink that it took to complete the drawings. I also told her that if they were buying the Mona Lisa, they would value it based on the cost of the canvas and paint.

I consider mandolins as much "art" as I do a ulitarian music making device. There is also considerable "science" involved. Same with my profession as a golf course designer. You cannot totally base the value of "art" subjectively. The value is created mostly (maybe entirely) on market forces. The only thing that may make a Gilchrist F-4 worth $16,000 is the fact that next year you could sell it for $18,000.

For some folks is a choice of whether they have $16,000 sitting in the bank drawing 2% interest or $16,000 is a mandolin 2% or more interest. I would probably pick the mandolin. Right now, I'll just pick my '18 F-4.

evanreilly

Mar-06-2005, 12:58pm

I asked the boys at the Gibson shop a while back about doing an F-4 nowadays. They consider the retooling that it would take to introduce that model, at the present time, to be unfeasible. Not an impossibility, but not probably soon.
A more current answer may be forthcoming from someone inside OAI.

kudzugypsy

Mar-06-2005, 1:49pm

i doubt you will see gibson bringing back the F4 anymore than they will resurrect the archtop tonering or banjolin (all of which were poplular sellers in their day, but have little use now)

Spruce

Mar-06-2005, 1:55pm

i doubt you will see gibson bringing back the F4 anymore than they will resurrect the archtop tonering or banjolin (all of which were poplular sellers in their day, but have little use now)
Wait a few years....

Harry H

Mar-06-2005, 2:04pm

Has anybody played the '82 Gil F-4 for sale at Elderly?

Spruce

Mar-06-2005, 2:53pm

It's on hold (http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/90U-4215.htm)...

I guess "a sucker is born every minute."

Jim Hilburn

Mar-06-2005, 3:33pm

While I didn't read every post word for word, one point I didn't see mentioned is that a Gil F-4 is far more rare than old Gibson's.

neal

Mar-06-2005, 3:42pm

Jim, it was mentioned. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Nick Triesch

Mar-06-2005, 3:57pm

A new F4 made by a small builder just can't sound like a 1924 Gibson F4. And if you look around you can find a real nice one for only $8000!!! With out the top sinking. Give me a break. Gil's are nice but they sure are no Nugget. Now I feel that a Nugget F5 will be worth $100,000 in 60 years. I think they are the next Loar. I've played two and heard four. Those are the real deal. It's kind of like a 1955 Porsche speedster. If you can find one it will be pretty worn in some areas. But I sure would rather have it than one of the perfect Porsche copys that cost a ton of bucks. We are talking about a 1923-24 Gibson F4 made right along with the Loar F5!!! Nick

SternART

Mar-06-2005, 4:08pm

Lost you there mandocat......how is a Nugget any more like a 55 Porsche Speedster, than a Gilchrist?
Clearly you must have limited experience with Gilchrist's, his recent instruments are simply spectacular.

evanreilly

Mar-06-2005, 5:04pm

Ain't no flies on Steve Gilchrist's mandolins, judging by those who play play them: Mike Compton, David Long, Ronnie McCoury.
And I know several owners of Loars who have acquired Gilchrist's because they consider Steve's instruments to be as close as they come to the older Gibsons, which mostly don't see too much daylight.

SternART

Mar-06-2005, 7:52pm

Add Grisman to that list Evan......he had both an F5 and a dola Gil at Wgrass, and Joe Craven in the DGQ was playing one too.....numerous other pro players could be added to the list.

bluegrasssboy

Mar-06-2005, 7:56pm

Did any of you play the Gilchrist F5 that Elderly had at IBMA this past October? #I was pretty dissapointed with it. #I'm assuming that's how it ended up for sale. #It was around 20 grand I believe.
#There were _lots_ of people hawking mandolins at IBMA. #It seems to be _the_ instrument to be trying to sell nowadays. The best I played at IBMA were the Bentrups. # Going from booth to booth, the Bentrup mandolins seemed to me to be the best there. # Really good mandolins.

I'll give Kudos to Ken Ratcliff and his Silver Angel mandolins too. #Although his fit and finish is not comparable to a Gil, I've played #7 or 8 of his mandolins over the past 5 years or so and they've all had great deep woody tone to them. #Ken knows how to make a good sounding mandolin.

cheers,
th

kudzugypsy

Mar-06-2005, 8:08pm

well, to "settle" this, someone who frequents elderly who has access to an original 20's f4 should go A/B 'em and report back.
to ME, i would rather have a 20's F4 w/virzi, and the extra cash.

hey evan, you should get your hands on a paganoni, that'll put the loar mojo workin' on ya.

Nick Triesch

Mar-06-2005, 8:30pm

Hey, I'm sure that Gilchrist mandolins are terrific. A lot of folks love them. I would just rather have the real F4 from Gibson. That's all. A friend of mine years ago had a wonderful example and it had a wonderful sound I will never forget. Steven and you other guys, I know what a good mandolin should sound like. An old Gibson F4 sounds like my 23 Gibson A. Very close. And you just can't find that sound everyday. It's true, I have never played a new Gil. So I don't know. But the old Gibsons are so cool. Come on, you know they are! Nick

levin4now

Mar-07-2005, 7:12am

I'd like to know why (it seems) that Gibson F-4s were selling for around $4k a little while ago and now all of a sudden $6k+?

bsimmers

Mar-07-2005, 7:18am

A sucker born every minute is the right answer. It is truly a shame that instruments have crept into the "collectable" market where they are purchased for the investment value. Sooner or later the vast majority of really good vintage instruments are not played, but on display, or in a vault with Tony's Clarence White Martin. Instruments are made to PLAY, aren't they? I mean, who out there is going to reap $14,500 more enjoyment, sound, ease of play, income(ha! Help me control myself) than the Flatiron F-5 I bought for $1,800 in 1992? Other than the likes of Compton. And I dare say that the vast, vast majority of listeners won't recognize the sound difference of the typical $16,500 instrument and the typical $1,800 one. Again, it is a tragedy that the only people who can own these "collectable" instruments are investment thinking people, or the Comptons. The price is $16,500 merely because suckers are convinced it's worth it, and they could get their money back out of it if necessary.

Bob DeVellis

Mar-07-2005, 7:55am

Thanks, guys, for all the insightful comments.

Let me clarify one point that may have not come through in my original post. It's not so much the price of a Gil that shocks me as the difference in price between the original F-4s and the Gil. Although Loar F-5s are through the roof and scarcity is undoubtedly part of the reason, llok at the price of a '27 F-5. Post Loar, but certainly priced above contemporary builders' F-5s. It just strikes me as odd that there is such a gap. Part of it, I suspect, is how our expectations come into play. Why do we feel comfortable with F-styles from the 20s (but post-Loar) at 70K but shrink at the thought of F-4s at 8K? Popularity? True, the F-5 is a more popular style, but someone is paying $16,500 for a copy of an F-4, so someone out there sure loves them. Interestingly, I think the mojo of a Gil F-4 is rub-off from the mojo of his F-5s. So, an F-4 copy by a guy who builds gret F-5s is worth more than an original F-4. I'm not saying this is wrong and I'm certainly not suggesting that any given instrument isn't worth what it can bring in the market. I just thing it's all rather interesting.

Bob A

Mar-07-2005, 9:54am

"Comfort" may be a misleading term for the phenomenon of people being willing to pay many tens of thousands for an instrument that can be approximated for a tiny fraction of that outlay.

In this market, as in any dealing with relative rarities, the prices are set by the highest bidder. Sadly, taht bidder defines the market. If I buy a Rare Widget for 20 grand, anyone holding another is not likely to sell it for less. He'll hang onto it until the next buyer, who just can't face life without a Widget of his own, makes a similar offer. These offers are public record if sold at auction, though it frequently occurs that no one else is able to afford or stomach the thought of a 20K Widget; then a private deal is struck: the seller gets a large unspecified chunk of change, the buyer gets his Widget, and the market becomes aware that another Widget has been purchased. The 20K record stands, and so it goes.

With the current economy, there is a lot of money floating around, in equity, in underperforming stocks, and in cash holdings that are earning low rates of return. People who can afford to invest, and who have the good sense to be mandolinists, can see the writing on the wall. Why not buy a Gil, whose market value has been well established, and play it until 10% returns are again available without undue risk? And who knows, you might like it enough to keep it, but if not, there WILL be a buyer - because Gilchrist cannot make as many mandolins as Gibson can, so the scarcity factor will not be diluted.

With post-Loar F5s, you see value by association. The reasoning is that the actual instrument would have changed little in the short period between the Departure and the 30s, when production virtually ceased. And due to the end of the Mandolin Boom of the time, there were not all that many examples extant. So you have rarity, similar quality and construction, and a breathtaking price point, all factored in and driving the price.

You also have an active mandolin community, with enough players to soak up the supply. If and when people stop playing the instrument, things will change. Loars will remain high, but it may be that boutique instruments will be much less sought after. Who knows? But if you have some valuable instruments, don't let your children become banjo players. We will need a bunch of enthusiastic mandolinists to keep things floating.

Of course, nearly all of this is driven by mojo rub-off in one form or another. Without exemplars to emulate, we'd be left to purchas what we thought played and sounded best. (Many do. Then the word gets around, and little builders become Big Builders. So it's not to denigrate those who have earned their reputations. They are deserved. But it's market forces that determine the ultimate value, and markets can be fickle.)

And yes, it is interesting. Look at the volume of response this sort of thing produces. I'll never have a Gil or Loar, but here I am typing away as though I know something. And why not? Talk is cheap - I can afford it.

Spruce

Mar-07-2005, 10:12am

"Sooner or later the vast majority of really good vintage instruments are not played, but on display, or in a vault with Tony's Clarence White Martin."

I dunno...
At IBMA this year, there were 20 or Loars being handed around at jams...
Sounded like they were getting (very) played to me...

But we're only talking a measly 125K per....
Try tagging your observation to the violin world where $5 million sticker prices abound...
And they still get played...

"It's not so much the price of a Gil that shocks me as the difference in price between the original F-4s and the Gil."

Answer:

"I'd like to know why (it seems) that Gibson F-4s were selling for around $4k a little while ago and now all of a sudden $6k+? "

That, and F4's are starting to get played onstage...
I've seen 4-5 or so in the past 6 months or so, and not just for one tune in the set...

People too are realizing that when you stick on an LP of a lot of the seminal recordings in Bluegrass (Martin, Stanleys, etc.), it's just stinks of F4...
And it is a very good stink... #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Plus the stong old-timey scene...

Perfect storm for the F4...

kudzugypsy

Mar-07-2005, 11:28am

bob, you have said in a nutshell what i have believed for a long time. most of this vintage instrument craze has nothing to do with old instruments being vastly superior, its all about investment speculation.
people with money...real money...dont go for 1.5% returns from a saving acct. they are looking for what ever is going to turn a higher return. a lot of these folks dont even play...WHAT..you say?? yeah, that last loar that Tony Williamson had at IBMA was an investment by the famous John Boy & Billy radio personalities...they had a whole vault full of old instruments and their accountant finally said SELL!
there are a small handful of *investores* who as we speak are trying to set the market price by accumulating as many of one particular example (in our case, loars) then making sure they stay at that lofty price. in other words, it would not be to their advantage to see a loar sell for less than $125k, (as they are sitting on a few) and they have the financial means to make sure any that do come up at this *low* price are immediately swiped up. then, when a loar owner sees a figure of $150k, their not gonna take a penny less.

of course, all of this is part of our american way, and i have no grips about it, whether it be mandos or land speculation, thats just the way it is and always will be. when the high returns cool down (like seems to be happening now with the newer high end) then these folks will find somewhere else to put their money. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

btw, that July 9 was the best one i've ever laid hands on and was well worth the price....so hows that!

Spruce

Mar-07-2005, 11:40am

" yeah, that last loar that Tony Williamson had at IBMA was an investment by the famous John Boy & Billy radio personalities...they had a whole vault full of old instruments and their accountant finally said SELL!"

"a lot of these folks dont even play...WHAT..you say??"

Funny...
That Loar was purchased at IBMA, and then had the snot played out of it for the next 4 days, 23-1/2 hours-a-day by a whole raft-load of folks whose whole IBMA was made by the experience....

Hardly a case of an investment getting tucked away unplayed...

bsimmers

Mar-07-2005, 12:02pm

"I'd like to know why (it seems) that Gibson F-4s were selling for around $4k a little while ago and now all of a sudden $6k+? "
Spruce,
Because some suckers are convinced that they're worth that. 10 years ago people were paying twice the price for avg.(not Ripken or Bonds) baseball cards that were purchased 1 year earlier. Marketing is a funny thing to figure out, and sometimes happens by accident. Things become collectable and in demand because enough people become convinced of it.
I've played 1 Gilchrist. Wow, a great instrument! The best mandolin I ever played. I love the music it produces, and the way it played.
So, if I get offered a mando job with Alison Kraus, sell a million solo mando cds, plus half a million instructional cds, and find myself quiting my job for my lucrative music career. Then maybe I'd buy a Gilchrist F4 or F5, willing to pay $3,000. There's no way it's worth any more than that to me........unless I'm convinced that I could resell it for more than I paid. Which is what it's come to. Earlier I said, "Sooner or later the vast majority of really good vintage instruments are not played, but on display, or in a vault with Tony's Clarence White Martin."
I stand by that. I believe a much higher percentage of vintage instruments are on display or in a vault than 10 years ago. And 10 years from now, it will be 10 times worse. .....of course the Comptons will be playing them.
For the record, I've played 3 Loars, and would not trade my Flatiron for any of them.(except to resell it) One day, like everything else, more and more of us will say enough is enough and buy the 'made in China' mando.

kudzugypsy

Mar-07-2005, 12:25pm

spruce, like i said, that was one of the BEST loars i've ever had hands on and worth EVERY penny of its selling price.... and that mando had a good life of serious playing by its previous owner.
where was that mando from the time is was purchased for 1/3 of its selling price until it sold for $1xx,000? .......in a vault as an INVESTMENT. time came when they unloaded it like any other investment to put back into something with better future potential (in this case 50's strats and les pauls).

i'm TICKLED that the mando is back with pickers, that is one FINE, FINE Loar!!!
one of those that make you say, yeah, these mandos deserve their reputation.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

Spruce

Mar-07-2005, 1:38pm

"One day, like everything else, more and more of us will say enough is enough and buy the 'made in China' mando."

Well, there's one thing working against your theory...

And that is this:
The largest fortune in the history of humankind is in the process of changing hands, and that is the fortune that was amassed by the WWII generation ("The Greatest Generation")...

Yeah, a 25K Grand Artist or a 23K Gil (not to mention some of that shaggy sheist coming out of the PRS factory) may be god's way of telling you "you have too much money", but that doesn't diminish the fact that some people these days in fact, do.

bsimmers

Mar-08-2005, 6:09am

Bruce,
I didn't realise I had a theory. I think I've written way too much just to point out that I think vintage acoustic instruments are grossly overpriced merely because of people purchasing them for the investment, and not playing them. And although that's not the case 100% of the time, that is the case most of the time. And more all the time.

Bob A

Mar-08-2005, 11:30am

Well, vintage instruments may be expensive, and subject to purchase by speculators, but that doesn't mean they are not worth the money.

I bought my F4 back in the early 70s, for a grand. (And the money was not easy to come by). If I'd taken the money and invested it, and been lucky, I could have maybe got 10% per year, the average increase over time in the stock market. But say I got 7%. That translates into a doubling of the principal every 10 years; so by the early 80s, it would be 2K; by the 90s, 4K, and today maybe 8K. So I've lost some money, but had a nice instrument to play as compensation.

But that was because I put my money into something with recognised quality. If I'd spent a grand on low-end PacRim guitars, I'd be sitting on some expensive firewood.

People who play them frequently LIKE vintage instruments, and there are enough of those folks around to keep the price more or less in line with what they've spent. Is that an investment? Maybe, maybe not. But if you don't like them, keep your money. But don't call me a sucker because of my choices, which seem to be ratified by a lot of other folks who vote with their hard-earned cash.

It's fine to be opinionated. I certainly am. But it's something else to be insulted.

bsimmers

Mar-08-2005, 1:13pm

Bob A,
No insult intended. I'm glad to hear you're playing your vintage instrument. If everyone who bought those great instruments over the past 20+ years bought them to play, like you evidently did, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and that great Gil F4 would'nt be 16,500. I just don't think everyone's been like you. But for someone buying an instrument today, to PLAY, not resell, http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif??? 16,500? It's their money, their choice, you're right. I guess I'd be very surprised if you blinfolded some of those people and handed them a $3,500 Weber to play, and they said it was 13,000 less in sound and playablity. Or that they would even know it was less. I'd have to see that to believe it. If I buy anything at all for 16,500 when there is something as good for 3,500, I am a sucker, whether it's a car, a mandoolin or this computer.

Links

Mar-08-2005, 4:31pm

Bob:

I have to agree with you totally. I have played and "collected" instruments for over thirty years and although I may be a little jealous of folks that can afford Gilchrists and Loars, I do not begrudge them for owning them. If they care to play them or put them in a vault, that is their choice, not mine. I do not blame them for increasing the market value of instruments, because "all boats rise with a rising tide". My instruments have risen as a result.

If a $3500 mandolin sounds as good as a $25,000 Gilchrist, then my advice to the person that thinks that is to buy a $3500 mandolin and not worry about the fact that a Gil is 25K. I don't. As a matter of fact, I want to find that 3.5K mandolin that will be worth 25K in five years! If the bottom falls out of the mandolin market a year from now, I guess those folks that have 25K in a Gil will still have a nice mandolin.

That's just the way things work!

f5joe

Mar-09-2005, 3:54am

The "best" is always in lower supply and higher cost. This applies to most everything I can think of. It's the law of supply/demand and quality.

Just because I want a 7-Series BMW doesn't mean I'm going to be able to afford it and/or spend that kind of money. I don't consider those buying the 7-Series cars to be "suckers".

I have very thick skin but bsimmers comment is stated as an insult. Some things are black and white.

Klaus Wutscher

Mar-09-2005, 4:47am

Lets not forget you always have choices in the market-
prices are the way they are but you can always react in a certain way- you could have a new f 4 built by quite a few young (and old) builders for half the price that a Loar aera f4 brings nowadays. if you are into the vintage mojo thing you can still pick up teens and twenties A styles from 1000.- onwards. If, however, you NEED the scroll and/or a specific builder, I guess you are stuck. It all comes down to flexibility.

cutbait2

Mar-09-2005, 6:27am

i would say it's collectors and hobbiest's (amateur players) driving up the prices, not investors. while the price of many collectibles is likely to increase there are more certain ways to invest. one of the keys of investing is being able to retrieve your profit with some certainty. my experience with mando buying and selling indicates that's not always easy to do. regardless of what appears to be happening in the cafe classifieds. it's probably not fair to compare the price of any new builders mando to a signed Loar. SG's current work should be compared to the MM or other contemporary builders. really the main reason his price is so high is the lack of instruments on the market and the number of pro's using them so when they do appear the seller is able to ask a premium. over 500 built, available 1 or 2? compare against some of the high end factory mando's which always seem to be for sale. the Loar at elderly still there? sat for a year at 130k? why? perhaps because its widely demonstrated that you don't need a Loar to successfully record BG music which is the driver for the whole mando thing, this is where the comparisons to the violin market depart, perhaps if classical mando music becomes the rage a whole new focus for the instrument will emerge....

AlanN

Mar-09-2005, 6:34am

Darryl Wolfe

Mar-09-2005, 7:01am

The population segment interested in and willing to buy 100K+ instruments is picky. The Elderly Loar sat (sits?) because of that. It needs to be perfect to warrant the price. Heard tell that one went for 175K recently.
Picky..yes...that's what it is usually about..
There are "Loars" within the Loar ranks that rate as more desirable, harder to place your hands on....hence occasionally, you have to pay what you have to pay...I've never seen any Loar owner in this/that position end up unhappy or as they say with autos.."upside down".

My first Loar was refinned..but I had to have one. #Later I got picky and upgraded along the way to what now qualifies as upper tier.

The Elderly Loar has some slight issues and the community is aware of that. #Those issues on the Elderly Loar are really minimal and SHOULD NOT really affect the value of the instrument as much as the pricing and/or lack of interest are indicating. #Again, another example of what AlanN is referring to....by virtue of the referred to sale above.//the Elderly Loar is now a bargain