Our 13 year old daughter has been playing the violin for eight years (since she was 5) and we have always rented from her teacher with the understanding that when she reached a full size we would invest in a violin. Her teacher is a committed and dedicated Suzuki instructor and our daughter is currently working in Book 7 of the Suzuki repertoire. The time has come for a full size and we went on a buying trip with our teacher last week (our teacher does not take a commission from sales). The violin that they both chose after looking at several in various price ranges was a $5,000 violin made by Andrew Hyde in the late 1800's. The violin shop is a small independent shop owned and managed by a very well respected man in whom our teacher has utmost faith and with whom she has done business for thirty years.
My question is this- We could buy a new Potter violin for about half the price but would have to do all trials etc via mail since we live in a rural area.
My husband feels a $5000 investment in an instrument for someone who still has to be reminded to practice every day is completely excessive and I have to say I can understand his point of view. However, he is unconvinced that even a $2500 investment is necessary.
My question is: 1) Could we truly sell (not trade in or up but sell) this violin for what we paid sometime in the next eight to ten years? Obviously, this is assuming the violin stays in the condition in which we purchased it, and 2) does a violinist of slightly above average skill and talent necessarily need or deserve a violin in this price range?
In looking on-line I was struck by a comment of Isaac Stern's who allegedly said that unless you are willing to pay $100,000 or more for an violin you may as well buy a new one...
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.