I love old instruments for that reason. I have a couple 100+ year old violins and people often think that means they're expensive, but it really doesn't. You can go to music or instrument festival and get a 100+ year old violin for less than $500. People made student violins 100+ years ago, and they're not "fine" instruments - high quality modern instruments would cost much more. But I still love that one of them was played in a remote, one room cabin during some pretty cold winters in the 1920s. The other one, I have no idea how it got over to the US, I can only wonder about it. Steerage, maybe?
I think most people understand that rarity and antiquity have an intrinsic value to many people, including for violins. If someone said they value their Stradivarius because it's a piece of history, I don't think there would be much debate. What some people are skeptical of are the claims that antique violins also have better acoustic and playing characteristics than violins made by the best contemporary makers.
Re:The World’s Best Violins Sing Like Humans
by samatman on Tuesday May 22, 2018 @02:47PM
(#17128406)
That sort of discourse is used to paper over some uncomfortable class dynamics. There are more elite players than there used to be, but not by that much, and playing (sometimes owning) a known instrument is an indicator of lineage and favor.
Agreed. I've read accounts from several elite players who were told they wouldn't be taken as seriously if they played a contemporary instrument compared to if they played a Strad or Guarneri, independent of their playing ability.
A modern vase in the Ming style can be of comparable or superior quality to a genuine Ming of known provenance, and will of course be much less expensive.
No modern cello will ever bear a wound from Napoleon's spur. I hope most people understand that rarity and history are valuable in and of themselves.