Good morning, all.
As alluded above, I am the happy owner of a rather low-end, 2004-crop Calace. Well, what can I tell you? It is certainly "a classical intrument that is perfect without need of restoration and built to current-day standards of quality".
On the other hand, I cannot obscure the fact that, according to credible allegations, said "current-day" standards may be lower that what they used to be at the Calace atelier several generations ago— certainly when the great Raffaele was at the helm. I wouldn't know; I have never owned, nor do I hope/expect to ever own a pre-war Calace.
On structural/functional grounds, I must say that this instrument works just fine. Again, much as in Jim's experience with the Pandini, my newborn Calace may need some adjustments by about a year from time of arrival. But I would consider that normal and no demerit at all.
You can view this instrument (and read all the relevant discussions) under the "The Stork Is In" thread. All said, bank fees, currency exchange commissions, shipping, customs fees, etc. included, it cost me something shy of $1,000. Naturally, you would and SHOULD expect more if you spend over double that on a higher-end Calace, or a Pandini, or a Larson.
My (perhaps plebeian) bias —and consequent doubt—#is whether another $1,500-2,000 above what I paid gets you another $1,500-2,000 sound-quality worth or simply a fancier instrument, something I fancy but little. No accounting for taste, of course...
My $0.02 worth. Best of luck and keep us informed.
It is not man who lives, but his work. (Ioannis Kapodistrias)