Used versus new

[eupher61]

a 1966 Mira(f)one is a pretty amazing instrument. Typically, at least. Nothing like the mid-to-late-70s horns...they play themselves, basically. Heavier metal than the later ones, simply amazing. I've had the chance to spend lots of time with 2 of them, both CC (neither for sale at the time, but later I missed out on one of them) and have had passing flings with 4 or 5 others. If I had any need at all, that would be my prime choice big tuba.

[ghmerrill]

Let's start with a statement:

Used horns (from reputable makers) in reasonably good condition, seem to sell for 60-75% of their purchase price after 2-3 years. (That is the data I collected from the purchase of my 642).

Discuss...

Putting aside the issue of nominal vs. real cost and prices (which is a significant one, but really doesn't matter all that much if you're comparing price retention among groups of used items), I strongly suspect that the resale value of instruments (and indeed of anything) will vary at least with the original cost of the instrument. For example, I suspect that real data would show that the higher the original cost (and hence supposedly the higher the quality?), the higher the resale value in terms of the per cent of the original cost. But even that is subject to other forces such as availability, market conditions, whether an inexpensive item has risen to the status of a "classic", etc. This is certainly true in terms of such things as firearms and tools.

I am pretty confident that I could sell my Cerveny tuba for just about as much as I paid for it (not accounting for change in value of the dollar, purchasing power, etc.). I am absolutely confident that I could sell it for 80% of the purchase price. I also know that this would not be true of, say, a Bundy flute purchased at a standard retail price 25 years ago. So in part the quoted generalization above depends very much on what "reputable maker" means -- and you can make the generalization true or false by including less or more in what you are willing to regard as "reputable". In essence, the statement can then be seen as self-verifying because you can impose whatever semantics on it you like in order to make it come out true: "That's not a reputable maker." "Yes it is." Etc.

But of course, as one observer has already pointed out, that is of significance to me if I actually want to sell the instrument in question. I have a lot of difficulty in selling firearms, tools, or musical instruments. I don't buy them to sell them. I buy them to use them.

[Lectron]

Let's start with a statement:

Used horns (from reputable makers) in reasonably good condition, seem to sell for 60-75% of their purchase price after 2-3 years. (That is the data I collected from the purchase of my 642).

Discuss...

Putting aside the issue of nominal vs. real cost and prices (which is a significant one, but really doesn't matter all that much if you're comparing price retention among groups of used items), I strongly suspect that the resale value of instruments (and indeed of anything) will vary at least with the original cost of the instrument. For example, I suspect that real data would show that the higher the original cost (and hence supposedly the higher the quality?), the higher the resale value in terms of the per cent of the original cost. But even that is subject to other forces such as availability, market conditions, whether an inexpensive item has risen to the status of a "classic", etc. This is certainly true in terms of such things as firearms and tools.

I am pretty confident that I could sell my Cerveny tuba for just about as much as I paid for it (not accounting for change in value of the dollar, purchasing power, etc.). I am absolutely confident that I could sell it for 80% of the purchase price. I also know that this would not be true of, say, a Bundy flute purchased at a standard retail price 25 years ago. So in part the quoted generalization above depends very much on what "reputable maker" means -- and you can make the generalization true or false by including less or more in what you are willing to regard as "reputable". In essence, the statement can then be seen as self-verifying because you can impose whatever semantics on it you like in order to make it come out true: "That's not a reputable maker." "Yes it is." Etc.

But of course, as one observer has already pointed out, that is of significance to me if I actually want to sell the instrument in question. I have a lot of difficulty in selling firearms, tools, or musical instruments. I don't buy them to sell them. I buy them to use them.

[Michael Bush]

I have a lot of difficulty in selling firearms, tools, or musical instruments. I don't buy them to sell them. I buy them to use them.

[ghmerrill]

[Michael Bush]

(I think it's that mindset one sometimes encounters in Europe and in some regions of America: not being able to think of anything to do with a gun except commit murder. Why think that? We play other things on the tuba besides Sousa marches.)

[Lectron]

And we all know...It's not the firearm killing...In fact it has got nothing to do with it...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... h-firearms

[PMeuph]

Let's start with a statement:

Used horns (from reputable makers) in reasonably good condition, seem to sell for 60-75% of their purchase price after 2-3 years. (That is the data I collected from the purchase of my 642).

Discuss...

Putting aside the issue of nominal vs. real cost and prices (which is a significant one, but really doesn't matter all that much if you're comparing price retention among groups of used items), I strongly suspect that the resale value of instruments (and indeed of anything) will vary at least with the original cost of the instrument. For example, I suspect that real data would show that the higher the original cost (and hence supposedly the higher the quality?), the higher the resale value in terms of the per cent of the original cost. But even that is subject to other forces such as availability, market conditions, whether an inexpensive item has risen to the status of a "classic", etc. This is certainly true in terms of such things as firearms and tools.

I am pretty confident that I could sell my Cerveny tuba for just about as much as I paid for it (not accounting for change in value of the dollar, purchasing power, etc.). I am absolutely confident that I could sell it for 80% of the purchase price. I also know that this would not be true of, say, a Bundy flute purchased at a standard retail price 25 years ago. So in part the quoted generalization above depends very much on what "reputable maker" means -- and you can make the generalization true or false by including less or more in what you are willing to regard as "reputable". In essence, the statement can then be seen as self-verifying because you can impose whatever semantics on it you like in order to make it come out true: "That's not a reputable maker." "Yes it is." Etc.

You're point is well taken. The empirical data I used (i.e my own experience when shopping for a 642) is way too narrow to consist a true in-depth study. I was using it as a starting point. For me, If I were to sell a horn, or looked for a used horn I would start looking for a used one at around 75% of the purchase price, it might be more, it might be less. I am not on the market for a very fancy horn, nor am I on the market for a 25 yr old flute and I doubt it would be possible to include those in our discussion here anyways...

I do buy to resell sometimes. Around here, stores rarely stock many horns, there are only a few used ones around and the possibility to try horns I would only see in a big store or conference are small. I figure I can buy a used horn, clean it up, and sell it at what I payed for it and not lose money. The only way I figure I can do that is if I pay less than 60% the new price...

[Lingon]

Please guys, while the firearms, beer mugs, trumpeters etc are interesting discussions it is off topic in this thread. Please continue that at for example the Off Topic board.

It is essential that we take care of the old instruments and use them as some of them are really good, they are a bit of history and I am sure that we can learn much of their construction and behaviour. Used instruments may also be a good deal for many but still there are people that can not be talked to buy that old stuff that have been used. They want new instruments to make music with but can not afford a fortune for it so...

From what is said earlier in the thread it seems that an approximation of 25-40 per cent loss relative the new price after a period of about three years is what a buyer of a new instrument has to be prepared for. So far I have understood the arguments that this may be the result for a 'classic' brand. Now, is that turn-out also to be expected from the so called 'cheap' horns?

As some pointed out here is also a philosophical argument involved i.e. do I buy an instrument to sell or to use, and if use for how long? I do not know, but the only instrument I sold was a great bass trombone that I have since so many times regretted that I sold. However all and everyones conditions and reasons varies.

One question about new instruments is also, which alternatives, new that is, are there to the 'cheap' ones that are maybe as cheap or at least not as costly as the 'real' ones? With 'cheap' here I do not mean cheap regarding quality just a small amount of money to buy the stuff.

[ghmerrill]

From what is said earlier in the thread it seems that an approximation of 25-40 per cent loss relative the new price after a period of about three years is what a buyer of a new instrument has to be prepared for. So far I have understood the arguments that this may be the result for a 'classic' brand. Now, is that turn-out also to be expected from the so called 'cheap' horns?

This raises a somewhat delicate issue in this context. The 'cheap' horns we are talking about are being offered at varying degrees of cheapness. Would I expect to be able to sell my Jin Bao for, say, 60% of it's original purchase price in several years? Well, in my case that would be $450. And in fact I can imagine selling it for that, or for not much less than that. That's a speculative claim, but I think not totally unreasonable. However, if I had bought my Jin Bao from another supplier at a different price -- say $1,000 or more, then I think that I would probably have difficulty selling it for 60% of that purchase price. Again, you need to distinguish cases in which you got a "good deal" and cases in which you got a "standard deal". And this is related to the question of "Did you get what you paid for?"

If a significant part of what you are paying for is not the instrument itself but rather things like warranty, repair services, preparation of the instrument prior to shipping, shipping costs, quicker availability to you of the instrument, easy availability of parts, etc., then you will NEVER recoup these costs or any portion of them. But they may be very important to you when you purchase the instrument. So if you buy non-discounted items and pay for things that do not "stick" to the item as it ages, then you just can't expect to get that money back when you sell it. Doesn't matter whether it's a tuba or a toaster.

Also, unless you sell as part of a private deal (as opposed to trade-in), and what you are selling is still "in favor" as an instrument (and has not been superceded by better technology or simply fashion), you also can't expect such a high return when you sell. There are just a lot of variables in the marketplace.

As some pointed out here is also a philosophical argument involved i.e. do I buy an instrument to sell or to use, and if use for how long? I do not know, but the only instrument I sold was a great bass trombone that I have since so many times regretted that I sold.

Me too. I traded in a great bass trombone in perfect condition for less than half of what it cost me (discounted) because (a) I wasn't aware of some alternatives for selling it, and (b) the model had fallen out of favor with bass trombone players. But it did get turned into a fantastic discounted deal for an excellent flute for my daughter which -- should she ever decide to sell it -- I'm sure would return very close to the purchase price if not more (it's solid silver, for example).

Part of the moral of the story is that if part of what you're buying -- part of what you think gets you "what you paid for" -- is resale value, then this can often be quite difficult to evaluate and predict.

[Rick Denney]

I do not know what my Holton BB-345 cost when new in 1970. But $1700 sounds about right. In real dollars, that would be $9500 in 2010, which also sounds about right. In like-new condition (which, for a Holton, is what it is), examples of that vintage sell for about two thirds of that value. A C version in like-new condition might sell for as much as it did when new, in real dollars.

In 1977, my Miraphone cost (someone) about $1700. In 2010, that's about $6000. Used in like-new condition, 1977 Miraphones cost about half that these days. C versions would be more.

In 1984, I paid $1500 for a demo-model Sanders (Cerveny) tuba. In 2010 dollars, that would be $3100. Used, it's probably worth half that. Being in Bb doesn't help.

I paid $3000 for a Vespro (read: VMI) tuba (new demo) in 1992 or so. I sold it two years later for $2500 to a church. So, it lost 20% of its value, assuming the church paid fair market value. It was in like-new condition.

Both the Sanders/Cerveny and Vespro/VMI were budget instruments, and the Sanders brand (of Custom Music) was Asian-made last I looked.

If anyone knows what a York Master might have cost in 1960, I can run that one. My suspicion is that it's worth close to its new price in real dollars, and mine may be worth a bit more just because of who owned it before I did (Oscar Lagasse and Chris Hall). That value will be hampered by being a Bb tuba, though. I bough it in 2000, I think, and what I paid was about $775 in 1960 dollars (a lot more in 2000 dollars, of course). That might be pretty close to in line with what it cost when new, so I think it's reasonable to suggest that when I bought it, it had lost no real value.

My Yamaha 621 F tuba was $3100 when I bought it in February of 1991 as a conference demonstrator. That's $4900 2010 dollars--less than the street price for a new one. It is probably worth at least 80% of that, and maybe more.

Jacobs paid $175 for his York (used) in 1931. The 2010 equivalent is $2500. It's worth 20 times that, at least.

Mike Sanders paid $788 for his new Alexander in 1968, as I recall. In 2010 dollars, that would be about $5000. I suspect that same instrument, in whatever condition, is worth that much today. A new one probably gets twice that. He sold his in 1988 for substantially more than what it cost him, in real dollars.

So, there's some data. Quality instruments over the decades might keep as little as half their initial new (street) price in real dollars if they were really common, or they might be worth a much larger value. Fame and rarity combine to drive prices up, obviously, as does a strong provenance. Less-than-new condition reduces prices, of course, and the older the tuba, the more likely the price will be affected by its condition. Tubas that don't age well will be more affected, of course.

Rick "still well down into anecdotal noise" Denney

[Lingon]

Thanks guys for the interesting discussion. Many arguments to think of when about to buy an instrument.

One of the main points as I can see it is, as pointed out, if we buy to use the horns for a long period or just with an eye on the resale value because we do think that we must either have another one soon or maybe we are planning to stop playing in a couple of months or years.

...I do not know what my Holton BB-345 cost when new in 1970. But $1700 sounds about right...

Great Rick, thanks for those data it clearly is something to take in consideration when aspiring on an instrument. However it is not totally consequent for all instruments either so it may be some gambling involved in many cases.

One thing is if I buy a new something of good brand for let us say USD 8000 and it looses say 30 % then my loss is USD 2400. If I buy a 'cheap' one for maybe USD 1600 and it goes down 30 % then my loss is USD 480 which will be sligtly less. And I do not have to invest such a large amount from the beginning. But the economics is just one side of the coin, even if that may be the most significant one for some. Quality is another side, and that may or may not be arguments for some persons. And also, what is talked about in another thread, if I am willing to accept to play on a horn irrespective of origin.

One question that still waits for an answer is about which slightly costlier alternatives are there to the Chinese instruments if you still not is convinced to buy used but must or want to buy new? And do these give as much horn for the money as some of the Chinese does?

[Rick Denney]

Remember, this is only partly a financial transaction--you have to be able to afford what you buy. But a more important question is: will you thank yourself for the purchase you made? Will it inspire you to be musical? Buying a proven used instrument that holds its value is a good strategy for one who doesn't yet know what he wants. For one who knows what he wants, compromises will only be temporarily satisfying.

Rick "it's a investment in satisfaction, not mere dollars" Denney

[jimtheob]

OK. here is my story. I wanted an independent valve bass trombone, because I owned two and one was not independent. I sold the dependent horn (a beautiful instrument from a famous maker) and discovered to my horror that it would be a very long time before I could afford even a USED acceptable-maker horn. Possibly unwisely, but understandably, I was seduced by an ad on UK's eBay site for a "Vincent Bach Elkhart" bass trombone modeled after the Yamaha 613. I paid a less than half of what a used premium-brand horn costs. The horn arrived and to me and some other trombonists who should know, it was a well-made, great sounding horn. One small part of the linkage came off when I was trying it, which was easily remedied by gentle use of a pair of pliers. I am not satisfied with the mouthpiece that came with it (apparently a Schilke 51 imitation, much too small) but that's it. The metal is not thin, the slide is truly excellent after a bit of swabbing out with a bass polish, the slotting is fine, the tuning slides move well. the valves seem fine (albeit with a rather long throw for the F) and I guess my only worry is that it's going to fall apart in a month, as many people on trombone fora seem to think. I wish I could find out who made the horn, but no luck so far. Maybe some Chinese makers have discovered "Quality Control."

[Donn]

Maybe some Chinese makers have discovered "Quality Control."

Semantics note here: quality control is not about making sure that your instrument is a good one, it's about making sure that everyone's instrument is a good one. One good trombone, or a dozen, proves nothing about quality control.

[eupher61]

Maybe some Chinese makers have discovered "Quality Control."

Semantics note here: quality control is not about making sure that your instrument is a good one, it's about making sure that everyone's instrument is a good one. One good trombone, or a dozen, proves nothing about quality control.

Which leads to the question about Alexander and Cerveny. We calmly advise to check each of these brands more specifically than some others.

[Wyvern]

Maybe some Chinese makers have discovered "Quality Control."

Semantics note here: quality control is not about making sure that your instrument is a good one, it's about making sure that everyone's instrument is a good one. One good trombone, or a dozen, proves nothing about quality control.

True example here - In January I had in a batch of new EEb tubas from the factory. A top London professional was interested in buying having tried the Wessex EEb last year. I took eight examples from latest delivery to his house (as many as would fit in my van) for him and another London pro to spent the whole afternoon play testing. Not one was a lemon - they all played pretty consistently, although as in all brass there was minor variations (I heard comments like "the B on this one is incredible, while the Bb speaks better on that one") and after 3 hours they narrowed it down to two which were both corkers - excellent across all ranges. The second pro which had just come around to help choose, liked number two choice enough that he is having for himself!

Quality control on final finish, such as polishing to high sheen needs to sometimes be improved (or maybe acceptance level in finish needs raising - which I am to discuss with factory), but all important playing wise the Chinese manufactured tubas seem more consistent than the old British made Besson from what I have heard from a few UK pros.

[royjohn]

I'll add my $.02 here. I recently sold my BBb Besson (1975), which was too big for me,
and searched for something else. Narrowed the search down to something like a
Mack Brass TU-200 and a King 1241. I located a three year old Golden Cup BBb for
$1000 and bought that. After the quick sale of the Besson, I only had $200 out of
pocket. The Golden Cup plays OK with a few alternate fingerings. If I had bought a
King, I'd have had about $1000 out of pocket.

If I change tubas again, I can't see losing much more than $200 on a sale of the
Golden Cup (assuming that there's a buyer), if I take good care of it. Comparing
the time value of the $800 saved, I might lose $100. A hundred dollars to use a
horn for three to five years seems like a reasonable "rent."

[finnbogi]

Maybe some Chinese makers have discovered "Quality Control."

Semantics note here: quality control is not about making sure that your instrument is a good one, it's about making sure that everyone's instrument is a good one. One good trombone, or a dozen, proves nothing about quality control.

The way I understand quality contol, it is not even about making sure that all products are "good" i.e. of high quality, but that all products are of uniform quality, thereby fulfilling expectations.
For example, the big fast food and coffee chains have advanced QC systems making sure that your hamburger or coffee will taste exactly as vile in all corners of the world.

[jimtheob]

I agree with the posts about the use of the term "Quality control." I feel that the good quality of my horn is probably the result of the name "Bach" that appears on the horn and also the fact that I bought it from a dealer (Reeves Brass) who is also a trombonist. I just meant to say that I was surprised at the quality of the horn. I have seen the horn for much less than I paid, but it has to be ordered directly from China. I am not a great professional but a composer who also plays bass trombone. My other horn, an Olds P-24G is so good that if I ever get any complaints I can use that instead. I am just a bit put off by the blanket condemnation of Chinese-made instruments. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments.