Is Originality Important?

[NursingDaBlues]

Maybe I’m simply dim-witted, but I was posed with a question last night that made me stumble a bit because I wasn’t sure. So I thought I would bring it to the Café to get a consensus.

Do vintage mandolins follow the same considerations as vintage guitars?

Originality appears to be the prime consideration for vintage guitar owners. Any changes to a guitar – from the bridge plate, braces, and finish, to the pick guard, bridge, and tuners – tend to devalue vintage guitars. [Caveat: I know there are some exceptions; but the exceptions are typically tied to a “famous” owner.]

With a cursory glance, this doesn’t appear to hold true for vintage mandolins. Neck or fretboard changes that would be an anathema to a guitar owner seem acceptable to mandolin owners. Ditto for modifying the bracing, re-graduating a top, or even removing a virzi. And replacing a tailpiece, bridge, and tuners seems to be commonplace. But I don’t know if my perception is entirely accurate and whether I'm making a generalization based on isolated comments.

So I ask: Is originality important to mandolin owners? If not, why not?

[Tobin]

I wouldn't dare put all mandolin owners in the same box, which is to say there isn't one single answer for this. Vintage Gibson mandolins are still common enough that originality/collectibility hasn't kicked in like it has for certain other instruments. By and large, the majority of mandolin players who are buying vintage Gibsons are buying them to play, and they are more interested in tone than collectibility.

But of course, there are some actual collectors out there who only want 100% original parts. I just don't think there are enough of them to drive the market.

As for me, I only have two vintage Gibsons. My 1918 F4 is "mostly" original with only a replacement pick guard. My 1917 H4 mandola is 100% original as far as I can tell. If I were to do something like swap out the original fixed bridges with adjustable ones, I would certainly keep the originals with them. Because I do think that as time progresses (and more of the originals are lost/destroyed), originality will become more and more important to the value.

[Austin Bob]

You are correct in that it may be acceptable to buy a Loar that has been repaired (tuners & fretboard replaced, cracks fixed, etc.), but in general the more original and pristine condition it is, the higher price it will fetch on the market.

But I agree with Tobin that a player will be looking for the best tone out of the ones on the market, not necessarily the most original one.

[MikeEdgerton]

I doubt there is a single Stradivarius violin being played on a regular basis that is original. My next observation is that there are so many unoriginal original parts for guitars floating around that one must assume that some things will simply wear out and be replaced. I get trying to keep it original, I just know that you can't buy an original NOS bridge plate for a 1924 Martin guitar that's really NOS. I'm more in the school of make it look original. That 1925 Model T all original car at the show had to have new parts used in that engine if it's still running.

[pops1]

In the violin world everything black is replaceable without devaluing the instrument. Pegs, fingerboard, bridge is not black, but all the same these are wear parts and expect to be replaced. Mandolins seem more like violins in the collectible aspect. Make them playable and with the best sound. A collector doesn't want anything changed, let say a tube amp, it can't be turned on because of old worn out parts, but it is original. I feel if you can't play it, what's the point.

[JEStanek]

If I recall correctly, when Thile replaced the fingerboard on his first Loar, he kept the original so if needed, it could be resold as original (or more original than modified). Collectors and players are two different breeds of instrument acquirers.You can maximize your asking price by being more original. That doesn't mean someone will want to play it.

Jamie

[JeffD]

I think the issue for the most part depends on whether you ever plan to sell the instrument. If you plan on selling it, many say it will be worth more with all original parts.

I buy to keep, and so I really don't care. Sure if times ever get scratchy for me in the future as they have in the past, I may have to sell my mandolins. But squeezing out the last dollar, under those circumstances, will not be as important as getting debt collectors off my back.

I, myself, bristle at the idea that some hypothetical as yet unnamed buyer of the future is going to limit what I can do with and to my mandolins today.

[allenhopkins]

Distinction between musician "owners" and collector "owners." To musicians, most important variable is if the instrument works. Does it play easily, sound good, hold together in performance situations? They'll accept a certain level of modification to achieve best sound and playability; as parts wear out, they replace them, and they treat some level of wear as par for the course.

Collectors want things as close to original as possible; if there are restorations or repairs, they have to be [a] as close to replicating the original feature as possible, and [b] clearly disclosed, and affecting the instrument's collectible value.

Quite a few musicians have collected a stash of vintage instruments that they treat with care and may seldom play, and separate "gigging" instruments that they treat as tools of the trade. I think this is true of most of the rockers who've accumulated dozens and dozens of collectible guitars, which they proudly show off to interviewers, but leave home in climate-controlled storage when they go onstage.

Just an observation from a distance...

[Tobin]

I think the issue for the most part depends on whether you ever plan to sell the instrument. If you plan on selling it, many say it will be worth more with all original parts.

Even if we don't plan to sell them, we should also at least offer a passing thought to whoever will inherit our instruments when we die. We see it all the time here on the Cafe, where someone inherited dad's or grandpa's old mandolin but they replaced original parts with "upgrades" which may have been fine at the time but only detract from the instrument's value/interest today. How many people have been disappointed to hear that their inherited mandolin isn't worth much because it's not in original condition, or that the original parts were lost? It's great that grandpa enjoyed his mandolin however he liked, but it's a travesty that he didn't keep the original parts.

This goes for modern mandolins too, if they are high-quality enough to be heirlooms. None of us really knows whether our modern instruments will one day be collectible. But it certainly doesn't hurt to play it safe just in case, by holding on to original parts that are replaced along the way.

[Ray(T)]

Collectors are strange beasts. A friend was selling a collectable camera some years back and the person who bought it said that there were some people prepared to pay over the odds for something like an old Leica which was still sealed in its oringial box in the original brown paper wrapper which had never been opened.

I suspect that the more original something is the more it might be worth but to people who want to play the things it shouldn't matter that much.

[MikeEdgerton]

Every day dozens of vintage musical instruments are destroyed so that other people can keep their vintage musical instruments original. The most expensive mandolin in the world doesn't have the original tuners, bridge, fretboard, possibly tailpiece, or head stock plate. How original is a 20's mandolin with tuners that came off another 20's mandolin? There are parts that just wear out.

[JeffD]

Even if we don't plan to sell them, we should also at least offer a passing thought to whoever will inherit our instruments when we die. ... This goes for modern mandolins too, if they are high-quality enough to be heirlooms. None of us really knows whether our modern instruments will one day be collectible..

Not me.

If I were to someday discover that something I owned had become so high-quality as to be historically significant or uber valuable or highly desired heirloom, I would sell it. And, in fact, if there is too great a responsibility in the ownership, I would likely not purchase it.

YMMV of course, and there are many that agree with you. I am decidedly not a steward, I am an owner.

[Tobin]

Every day dozens of vintage musical instruments are destroyed so that other people can keep their vintage musical instruments original. The most expensive mandolin in the world doesn't have the original tuners, bridge, fretboard, possibly tailpiece, or head stock plate. How original is a 20's mandolin with tuners that came off another 20's mandolin? There are parts that just wear out.

OK, well, there's a difference between original replacements and aftermarket replacements. Since mandolins don't have matching serial numbers to their parts like guns or other collectibles, there's no way to know if the tuners on your 1920s mandolin are original to that instrument or came off of another one from the same era. It wouldn't matter either way, as long as they were of the same vintage and correct for that model. I think even the fussiest of collectors would be OK with that, again, since they're not numbered to the instrument.

That's an entirely different ball of wax than putting on a non-original type of bridge, upgrading to modern tuners, throwing out the original pick guard, etc.

[HoGo]

Back to OP. I think guitars are different from mandolins because the bridges, bridge plates and pickguards are integral parts and cannot be replaced without some damage to instrument. Mandolin bridge or pickguard or tailpiece can be replaced at any time and if original is kept then there is no devaluation. Heavily modified mandolins will not fetch prices of pristine examples.
I remember seeing ad for '37 D-28 week or so ago where the top was second replacement and also had new neck installed, so it was pretty much just original back and sides set (with several repaired cracks, likely twice reinished as well) and asking price was around $50k... that seems quite high for the condition.

[Randi Gormley]

And to add a touch of lightness to the discussion, when I went to buy my 1983 bandolim, the seller -- apparently used to collectors -- tried to tell me that it was worth more than advertised because it came "with original strings." Which it didn't, of course, since it was badly strung with guitar strings, one of which was wound around and over to cover two nut slots. But still -- are "original" strings even a consideration among guitar collectors?

[pops1]

But still -- are "original" strings even a consideration among guitar collectors?

I hope not. At least with me it would devalue anything as it would show me it was neglected and could have problems.

[Mando Mort]

Instruments are made to be played. I don't worry about future owners of my instruments. I take good care of them, but don't consider them collectibles.

[NursingDaBlues]

Thanks, everyone, for the responses. It’s interesting to see the opinions; but, then, that’s why I posed this question on the Café.

Obviously, I have my own perspective. While I have some vintage instruments, I don’t consider myself a collector. A couple of instruments have been in my family for quite a while. Others I purchased. They all continue to “earn their keep” and are played regularly. Yes, parts wear out and components fail; when that occurs the parts are replaced and the components repaired to as close to original as possible or practical. I do keep the original parts – because they were part of the original instrument.

I purchase an instrument for its tone/voice first and then its playability; if it has the tone I want but is difficult for me to play, I don’t buy it. And if it doesn’t have the tone I want, I don’t buy it. There are just too many options in both new and vintage instruments for me to choose from to want to modify one. But that’s just me.

If what I read in guitar forums is to be believed, then there are many others like me. Yes, there are collectors but there appears to be a goodly number of players of vintage instruments. For them and me, originality is preferred because those original components and that original construction produced the “voice” that is being sought. I guess support of that theory can be found in manufacturers producing instruments to vintage specifications; Martin “Authentics” for example.

So getting back to my original question: “Is originality important to mandolin owners? If not, why not?”
Well, for me, Tobin offered a rationale that I can wrap my pea-brain around. He wrote:
“Vintage Gibson mandolins are still common enough that originality/collectability hasn't kicked in like it has for certain other instruments. By and large, the majority of mandolin players who are buying vintage Gibsons are buying them to play, and they are more interested in tone than collectability.
… I do think that as time progresses (and more of the originals are lost/destroyed), originality will become more and more important to the value.”

Thanks, Tobin. And thanks to everyone for chiming in.

[Jim Garber]

In general, I really don’t think that there’s any difference between vintage considerations of originality for mandolins and guitars. As many have noted, a lot depends on who the buyer is and what he or she will pay. For instance, a pristine, all-original 1924 snakehead A-4 mandolin will go for top dollar whereas one with replaced parts, or serious repairs will go for less. Certainly some modifications like refinishing will diminish the selling price by as much as half. This is how the market works and the community of buyers is composed of some people who only care about utility with others who care about originality.