Page 1 of 1

Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not? Why?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:24 pm
by arpthark
I was bored so I was browsing some brass instrument retailer archives. I present three cases to you from ten years ago:

1. You could buy a new Conn 52J for about $9,000 in 2006. Ten years later, those tubas go on the secondhand market for about half that - a 50% depreciation.

2. You could buy a new Willson large piston F for about $7,800 in 2006. Ten years later, you can find them on the secondhand market for around $5,000-$6,000 - let's say $5,500 and call it a 30% depreciation.

3. You could buy a new Gronitz PCK for $12,000 in 2006. Ten years later, you can find them used for anywhere between $10,000 and $13,000 depending on the tuba. Let's say $12,000 and call it a 0% depreciation.

None of these figures are accounting for inflation and it's a bit of a simplification - obviously, not every used instrument on the secondhand market was purchased new in 2006. But I think there are some trends here. And the ultimate question: why do certain tubas really lose their value (Conn 5xJ series), some only slightly lose value (Willson piston F) and some remain more or less the same (Gronitz)?

Discuss.

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:53 pm
by toobagrowl
Why? Depends on the overall quality of the tuba (construction-wise and playing-wise), desirability and 'in-vogue-ness' of a particular tuba. The Gronitz PCK (for example) you cite keeps it's value because it is well-made, plays well, and is still a desirable model of tuba for many.

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:56 pm
by arpthark
I agree. "In-vogue-ness" is such a transient phenomenon. But I would argue that the Willson F is nearly as well-made (and much more dent resistant) as the Gronitz, and "big piston F tubas" are still in vogue... right? To some subset of the population? I might be out of touch.

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:03 pm
by toobagrowl
^ Well, yeah. I was just "telling it like it is" regarding the tuba market. I'm prolly 'out of touch' also, as none of the tubas I own/play are particularly "popular". And I'm OK with that :tuba:

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:30 pm
by Dan Schultz
I don't know what the Marzan rotary or piston 5/4 tubas sold for in '69 through '72 but I'd venture a guess that one these days sells for several thousand more. Of course... that's when gasoline only cost $35 a gallon.

What they cost doesn't mean much to me... just what they sell for now.

Ya can't give away one of those 'Frankfort Engineered' Shiller clones!

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:34 pm
by arpthark
Dan Schultz wrote:'Frankfort Engineered'
:!: http://www.frankfort.ky.gov/" target="_blank" target="_blank

^ I wouldn't buy a horn designed there either...

But yes, Dan touches on an interesting point - horns whose value has gone UP. 6/4 Holtons would definitely be in that conversation. Scarcity?

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:59 pm
by TubaSchnaidt
Yes, but you're kind of taking inflation into account <grin>

Put your $185 on interest since 1910 and figure what it would be worth now..Let's not even look at interest rates for the past 8 years. What would that 'little' $185 be worth now, just sayin'. I haven't calculated it but 116 years is a long time to compound interest.

Re: Which tubas have kept their value? Which ones have not?

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 8:02 pm
by arpthark
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl? ... year2=2016" target="_blank

It only goes back to 1913, but that's the idea. $4,471!