• Blogs
• Post Blog
• Discussion
• Violin Tips
• Violinists
• Instruments
• For Sale
• Festivals
• Register
• Log In

News by E-mail

Printer-friendly version

Looking for a violin between $10k-$20k

From David Ormai
Posted February 3, 2006 at 06:54 AM

In your range, Denis Cormier is fantastic. A lot of fine players at my school have his instruments, and Kyung Wha Chung uses one. Amazing instruments, at around $12,000 or so.

FMF

The waiting period for a Zyg just gets longer and longer doesn't it! Almost as bad as that Mario Miralles chap in LA.

If you try the more direct, personal route, looking at violins one at a time, it will be harder to find what you want. You'll also find that some of the makers with the best reputations are backed up for months or years, as others have mentioned. At the moment, I'm five orders behind--six or seven months, at the best, for instance. . . And I don't even encourage commissions: I think you should play the violin you're buying, not buy a violin you haven't played, that may or may not suit YOU better than anything else you've seen.

Right now there are lots of good violin makers out there in your price range, and you shouldn't have to stand in line to buy a good violin, so pick a source with lots of different things to offer, and see what you find.

10K

Very nice.

There are a lot of exceptional American makers that have great instruments in or around the price range you are looking for. Michael Darnton, who wrote above, and David Burgess who often posts on this site are both excellent. Other excellent makers include Philip Injean who sells in that range. Slightly above 20K are Terry Borman, and there is also Joseph Curtin (who is in the upper 20K's now). Of course, Denis Cormier, the Canadian maker also makes excellent and very fine instruments. In the lower 10K range, there is Marylin Wallin from Boston, from whom I have tried several fine instruments.

In the end, Mr. Darnton is right, you should try a variety of instruments to find the one that suits you best.

Cheers!

Not in my opinion. Though I've only tried one Zygmuntowicz.

Here is the phone #: 1-888-635-5225

Just a word of advice: if/when you ask some makers to send you instruments to try out, it's a good idea to time it so that they arrive at the same time and so you can try them out side by side--most preferably with friends and teacher present.

I've heard Curtin/Alf is much more expensive now.

.............................

and in my opinion, if one is looking for great fiddles and is ready to dish out 30k-60k on a new fiddle, check out the classics of the 20th century, makers like Sgarabotto, Bignami, Rocchi, Bisiach, Garimberti, Ornati, Antoniazzi, G. Fiorini etc.

Some of the makers mentioned, I have in my collection and I can vouch for their superb crafstmanship as well as tone, projection etc.

Great maker.

I've heard a lot of hype about new makers being the "next Stradivari" (starting with Vuillaume's projections about himself. . . and Pablo Casals nominated the now virtually unknown Paul Kaul for that honor), but in the last 300 year or so that hasn't even come close to panning out, not once. But there have been many, many fine makers, and there's no shortage of choices in virtually any price range you choose.

"or me from what I've seen, the cutoff is around 35K. Above that, there are a lot of nice old violins around that will whup ANY new one."

Couldn't disagree more with that statement. I owned a Gragnani that was particularly liked by Mr. Fushi, a Lorenzini and a Ventapane, not to mention a Becker and Son.

My Tripodi killed them all by a long shot. I'll take my Tripodi any day....

Old Italian, schmold Italian......

I have heard the contrary from very reliable sources and am now a little confused?

1. Christian Tetzlaff said on a link (http://www.greinergeigen.de/pic/2005_06_the_strad.htm) that "if I were to play a Strad and a Guarneri in a double blind test with my Greiner, I am sure that no one could tell which was the new instrument. When I play with orchestras, if they don't know what I am playing they always ask if it's a Strad or Guarneri". It's not that he prefers the Greiner absolutely. 'If someone were to offer me a beautiful Strad and it sounded better than the Greiner, I would play it immediately. I just don't have the means to buy a Strad and no one has approached me with any instrument that is better than what I am playing at the moment'.

I heard Tetzlaff play in 1998.

2. Isaac Stern (in a link on the website http://www.burgessviolins.com/oldvnew.html) said to New York Times in 1991 "If musicians can't spend at least $250,000 on a stringed instrument, they'd do better with a fine new one, provided they take the time to test it under battle conditions in a good concert hall."

I wonder if Stern and Tetzlaff are correct or not? Your thoughts please.

........................................

Bottom line is "chacun à son goût" (to each his own).

And William, I didn't say every old violin would beat a new one--I said you can easily find one that will. Perhaps your particular choices were not the best?

Most people who bark on about them have never been near one. As a result, you have this polarization between modern instruments and Strads/Guarneris, with people saying "my violin made by Joe Blow in his basement apartment in the Bronx sounds better than a Strad". People forget that there are very good instruments that were not made by these people, and I'm not even talking about Prassenda, Goffriller, Seraphin, Gagliano, Montagnana, Bergonzi etc... think about the great modern Italian instruments, and 18th Century French; Ornati, Bisiach, Sgrabotto, Gadda, Degani, Chanot, Lupot, Vuillaume etc...

These are some fantastic instruments that would do extremely well in a hall, and unlike a lot of modern instruments, do not involve taking a financial risk.

Not me. And Peter, I feel this comment is directed at me. I'm not yapping, I'm stating what I feel is a valid opinion based on my experience.

And Michael, don't you remember the Gragnani that you directly commented on years ago, whilst helping me after I sold it? I stand by my opinion. My Lorenzini sold (via Bein and Fushi) to a member of a well known European orchestra for well over $100,000 and was absolutely lauded by this fiddle player. What a joke. My Tripodi is 10 times better than the Lorenzini. My Ventapane was an outstanding violin-Peter Prier called it one of the finest constructed fiddles he's ever seen. My Tripodi is better. And my Gragnani was owned and played upon by Mr. Fushi himself. He called it an outstanding little violin. Yes, it was nice. But my Tripodi has all of the quality and twice the power, clarity, and richness.

And just to clarify, I've played Gagliano's, Rocca's, Strad's, del Gesu's (only two), Amati's, Montagnana's, Pressenda, etc. etc. etc.

The fact is, there are modern instruments out there every bit as good as, gasp, great old Italian instruments, and in many cases, better (though I'm sure there are some del Gesu's and Strad's among various others that are truly superior-although there are some by these makers that probably aren't all that great-the real scary range is the 'obscure Italian maker range').

Generally, I would say that there are many many more mediocre old Italian instruments than there are GOOD and certainly GREAT old Italian instruments. Again, that is based on my experience. And guess what? The shops will still try to sell you a mediocre high dollar Italian fiddle!

It's a money thing. And it's an ego thing.

So to all the players out there that are being told that they'll never find a truly great instrument unless they spend the big bucks on the old fiddles....I say, don't believe it! Don't believe it! Don't believe it!!! Search....and you shall find!

Are you questioning Tetzlaff's integrity? Sounds like it to me. Perhaps we can get Tetzlaff here to comment himself?

1. The chooser should never know what brand or price tag an instrument carries when trying it out.

2. Picking a violin leeds almost always into a trade-off situation: good for playing versus good for listening. There is no objective way to resolve that issue.

3. I've organized a blind test once including a top GdJ and including a top international soloist as well as a concert master and a few orchestral players: The "jury" could hear and decide in favour of the multimillion instrument only when NOT played be either the soloist or the concert master.

4. A violinist generally selects different instruments depending whether the purchasing should make him feel good or rather the playing.

5. Best selection results in the long run I have seen when the violinist did not get in contact with the seller or any person having a commercial interest in one or more of the suggested instruments during selection process.

FMF

FMF

I hear Tetzlaff play in 1998 (Sibelius). I didn't know what he was playing until interval (the Greiner) but it sounded fantastic.

Also, "eighty percent of dealers, retailers, restorers, and accessory manufacturers agree that the best instruments made today are at least equal in sound to the best ever made. Twenty-two percent believe they are superior" (Based on 1996 Strings Magazine market survey, conducted by PMC Research, an independent San Francisco-based research company). Is this true?

More fuel for the fire!

I cannot direct my comment towards you because I don't know you or your playing. There are great violins out there, but I've always been very skeptical of people who make these extraordinary claims. Old Italian instruments have an advantage, they are old! That, and the great ones have had the added advantage of being played extensively by strong players.

As to quality of making, it is without a doubt that today's instrument makers are in a far better position than their predecessors. The amount of information available to them is amazing, and the time they have to make an instrument is a lot greater. My point didn't necessarily have to do with the quality of modern instruments (my last violin was a Morassi, a modern italian which was stolen, and I own a modern bow by Gilles Nehr), but the fact that people totally ignore a lot of wonderful instruments in the price category just above some modern instruments.

People think if they can't own a Strad or a Del Gesu, that they should get a shiny candy apple red instrument from Cremona. There's more out there than that...

One thing which has been demonstrated to me about violin players and their violins is that quite a few of them don't know anything about picking a good instrument. A lot just get the loudest, most brilliant thing they can find.

In regards to your statement:
"From William Wolcott
Posted on February 4, 2006 at 9:22 PM (MST)
So, Gennady-
Are you questioning Tetzlaff's integrity? Sounds like it to me. Perhaps we can get Tetzlaff here to comment himself? "

William, I don't know where you got Tetzlaff from. I was giving an example with Stern and his use of Guarneri despite the fact that he had an extensive collection, not Tetzlaff, and I did say to each his own, didn't I?
But since you are putting words in my mouth regarding Tetzlaff, he does have an arrangement with Greiner, and he changes Greiner's fiddles every so often. Every fiddle that is better than the last one, Tetzlaff will take it and play it.

Sort of what Kreisler was doing with Hill bows.
This way Greiner can sell it as Ex-Tetzlaff Greiner violin (I guess).

I have tested and compared Greiner's fiddle to other contemporary and modern (early 20th century) fiddles, and for example my Sgarabotto kicked its butt not to mention my Vuillaume and some others.
Greiner is a fine maker, and thanks to the extensive promotions by celebrity musicians, his fame grew quickly.

And by the way, I have tried A. Krutz, and sorry to say it is a good instrument for intermediate players and way overpriced for what it is.

..........................

I forgot to mention, that promoting is not a question of integrity, but a question of being paid to promote a product. Most of our society thrives on that concept doesn't it?
Who does NIKE commercials, Chanel, not to mention the Pinchas Zuckerman signature bow by "YAMAHA", he also promotes Thomastik-Infeld strings. I happen to be an endorsing artist for them as well this is a cool website
(pardon the shameless self promotion....but just trying to make a point on the subject at hand). :)

Yeah, Imust have pulled it out of thin air. Sorry if you weren't referring to him.

Gennady said- " promoting is not a question of integrity, but a question of being paid to promote a product."

Oh...

You are a funny guy :)

Thanks for lightening up on the entry.
You stated "Are you questioning Tetzlaff's integrity? Sounds like it to me. Perhaps we can get Tetzlaff here to comment himself? "

I gave you my take on it and did say to each his own. Nes Pas?

The fact is that Tetzlaff promotes not only Greiner fiddles but other products such as Arcus bows as well (of which I am not a fan of at all, in fact I think they are good as back scratchers only). So now you know where he stands :)

It's easy to say "I wouldn't trade my maker X for a Strad", but I wonder what might happen if that opportunity really did present itself?

As I sell old instruments and new ones, I am amazed watching those "shopping" for an instrument second guess themselves ("Well. it's new... it might change.", "Well it's old... aren't there "better" living makers these days?", "Well, how much can I expect it to appreciate?"). Good questions in themselves, but maybe these are factors that should be considered before selection and not after... and some really don't constructively pertain to the price range in question.

My advice is that if you're looking between 10 and 20K, just look at what's available in that range and pick what makes the best sense for you.. not Tezlaff or Stern... or Wolcott for that matter. There are plenty of good contemporary instruments to choose from, and yes, there are a few viable older instruments (but economics alone pushes many out of this range). If you don't feel competent to discover and rate what's on the market for yourself, enlist help from a trusted teacher or colleague... or hire an independent person in the trade to enhance your choices.

My view is that price range buys you choice... not that all choices in a price range will be good ones. Increasing your range doesn't mean that you'll buy at the top... or that you'll find a "steal" at the bottom. It just means you'll have more to choose from.

As far as "eighty percent of dealers, retailers, restorers, and accessory manufacturers agree that the best instruments made today are at least equal in sound to the best ever made. " goes, I'd like to point out that not nearly 80% of the dealers out there regularly work with 7 figure, or even 6 figure, violins (I'd guess it's well under 20%)... and the makers themselves were mixed in when the sample poll was done. Again, are there great sounding contemporary fiddles? Yes.

... and Bill, I did not like that Gragnani. I think I told you that when you bought it. Never saw your Lorenzini.

Jeffrey-

Was it you I showed it to in Michigan? And it was when I was selling it. And you never commented on whether or not you liked it. You did, however, question whether or not it was a Gragnani. And you certainly never played it or heard it. I never left you alone with it, did I?

Robert Bein said that it absolutely was a Gragnani, and then bought it from me. Now we're getting into a whole other world. The world of authenticity. The world of lies....

I did hear it, but not that day... Remember, I'm good friends with your ex-teacher in Cleveland and visited there (still do) regularly (although I usually keep a low profile). My dislike of the fiddle was it's model, materials and quality (both have an indirect effect on sound).

I rarely disagree with Robert, as I feel he is an excellent expert, knows much more than I, and seek his opinion often... and what you may not know is that Charles Beare also agreed with the attribution.

Let's just say that they win hands down, but I still wouldn't sign up to resell that particular fiddle. :-)

It had Emil Hermann papers stating it was a Michelangelo Bergonzi. Horacio Piniero restored it and said it was from Venice , and perhaps even more valuable. And then, suddenly on the same day, two well known shops in Chicago said out of the blue that it was a Lorenzini. Well, it sold as a Lorenzini. Who knows what it really was....

Are you trying to say you didn't like my playing? lol
Thanks for giving me a complex....

I know...I know....I was joking...

I was going to write something, and did but changed my mind...

Cheers!

Michael, what year was your Curtin and Alf made and which 'model' is it, just curious thanks.

It is a 1996 Haddock Guarneri.

In reply to that comment, listen to the 1970s radio programme in which Charles Beare, Stern, and Zukerman compare (blind) a Strad, a del Gesu, a Vuillaume, and a modern instrument.

Their consensus was that the old Cremonese are better. And that Strads were that good when they were first made. And new instruments on the whole do not improve with age, that the aging idea is nonsense.

The Australian maker, Alan Coggins, has generously put the programme for download on his website, which is where I found it.

"In reply to that comment, listen to the 1970s radio programme in which Charles Beare, Stern, and Zukerman compare (blind) a Strad, a del Gesu, a Vuillaume, and a modern instrument.
Their consensus was that the old Cremonese are better. And that Strads were that good when they were first made. And new instruments on the whole do not improve with age, that the aging idea is nonsense."

Here are two comments on this post.

1 - How can Stern and Zukermann *know* that Strads were that good when they were first made? Were they there?

2 - How can Stern and Zukermann *know* that instruments do not improve with age? Have they lived long enough to test this?

What I am trying to say, of course, is not that *any* instrument will become as good as a Strad provided that it becomes old enough. Other things must be factored in here. What I am trying to say, however, is that in my opinion, the Strad mystery is highly overrated. I genuinely think that we should give modern makers a chance, and let outstanding players play those modern instruments. We should not focus only on Strads and Del Gesu's and other Italian instruments.

There is a pragmatic reason here as well. These old cremonse instruments are likely not to function properly in another 100 years or so. And then we will need modern instruments that are properly played in by outstanding players.

Furthermore, the art of violinmaking is one of the most fascinating arts in the world. This art should be supported and should remain supported.

I find it just highly unlikely that we are unable right now to make instruments that are as good-sounding as cremonese instruments. What did they have that we lack? I'm not sure we lack anything -- the only thing that might work against us is the age of the modern instruments. And there simply is not way to test whether age really makes a difference or not.

Best, John

So in a way, both arguments are correct, Yes Strads and Guarneris were great then, and Yes there are superb new instruments made today. The only difference is how will the new makers distinguish themselves in the market place, and how will they withstand the test of time, that has yet do be determined.
If you read M. Brinsers book, you will see exactly the same arguments being taken up against the early 20th century Italian makers arguing about German and other makers. Yet the market place has proven Brinser right. Makers such as Bisiach, Fagnola, Sgarabotto, Ornati, Garimberti Sderci, Lucci, Rocchi, Bignami, Antoniazzi, Fiorini etc. fetch a great deal of money and are the collectables of today. :)

Christopher White
Violin Maker

Gennady Filimonov
Member of odeonquartet and Seattle Symphony

Suresh Brady
Not a violin maker nor a member of the Seattle Symphony nor a player of a Sgarabotto violin.

the posturing...

Everyone checkout out the very interesting radio broadcast on http://www.abcviolins.com/fidfad.html. which John is refering to.

Only Charles Beare was correct as to which violin was the modern instrument (1 year old). Zuckerman thought the modern one was a Strad and Isaac Stern thought it was a del Gesu?

There are many factors to consider, as mentioned in the broadcast (room size, acoustic...), but how could the great Isaac Stern and Zuckerman get it wrong? I'm in shock!

How was this possible?

-John

In regards to: "Unfortunately Gennady, not all smart players can afford the name."

The meaning of my phrase encompasses modern and contemporary makers. If one does their homework and finds the best instrument within their budget (which includes a pedigree name, and good tone etc), then you are in good hands.
For example, if one is ready to dish out 30K - 60k on a brand new fiddle, one could do a lot better by choosing a great Italian Maker from the early-mid 20th century (makers I have mentioned already up above).

............................

In regards to the fascinating clip of the "blind-listening" test on four violins
with Stern & Zukerman, Isaac Stern made a very important point regarding the test being done in a small room rather than a concert hall, where the real test of "throw" of the instrument is revealed.

In a small lively room, even a mediocre fiddle will sound very good, but you take instruments to Carnegie Hall or any other good hall, and it would be self evident that the outcome of the same test would have been very different.

Here it is in "English" one more time:

"The meaning of my phrase encompasses modern and contemporary makers (10k-20k) as well. If one does their homework and finds the best instrument within their budget (which includes a pedigree name, and good tone etc), then you are in good hands."

Since many on this thread mentioned Szygmuntovitch and Alf, I said what I said about my take on Italian instruments between 30k-60k vs contemporary for same price. I hope my English is clear enough. Cheers :)

Moreover, you write:

"In a small lively room, even a mediocre fiddle will sound very good, but you take instruments to Carnegie Hall or any other good hall, and it would be self evident that the outcome of the same test would have been very different."

I am not sure how self-evident this is. Indeed, it is not self-evident at all, otherwise we would not be discussing the issue of modern violin versus Strads again and again.

Anyway, in defense of Isaac Stern, I think it is interesting to listen to his explanation regarding judging such a sound test.
A small room, will produce very different results as opposed to a concert hall.
That is a fact. What Stern calls "throw" of the fiddle is its carrying power into the hall. And mediocre fiddles in a big hall are not able to "throw" (or carry) their power beyond 3 feet.
As opposed to a Strad, Guarneri or a fine Vuillaume.

............................................

BTW, the Vuillaume used in their sound test does not represent all Vuillaume fiddles. That one sounded quite harsh and nasal. My Vuillaume fiddle is more like Hillary Hahn's, dark and juicy.

...........................
As far as the "best modern" maker is concerned, it is funny that it is still the Italians like Sgarabotto, Bignami, Lucci, Cappichinni, Garimberti, Ornati, Antoniazzi, Bisiach, Sderci Fiorini etc who are steadfast in their climb in terms of their value and their appreciation.

And yes both makers you mentioned are well deserved makers in their own right.

Support Violinist.com

Become a Sponsor

Search Violinist.com

Section Sponsors

The following violin shops have made a financial commitment to support the Violinist.com community.

Find how to advertise your business on Violinist.com.