# Is The Reputed Hifg Quality of Stradivari Viulins a Myth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 12, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455 "2004-12-12T15:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/141 "2004-12-19T01:06:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry for still not understanding your point properly - are you saying that any two pieces of spruce, carved into the same shape, will create a violin with the same sound and behaviour? Or that the shape they are carved into does not matter? The latter - and it doesn’t “not matter _at all_”, rather its effect is minor. > [@](#): > > In either case, what is it that makes every violin sound different? Its vibrational and radiative properties, which are largely determined by the piece of wood you use for the top plate. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/142 "2004-12-19T01:09:52Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Because not all violin builders can identify the pieces of wood with the appropriate qualities. So you say all they learned is choosing the righ pieces of wood? > [@](#): > > Their _crafsmanship_ is not in doubt, but there is a lot of unnecessary ornamentation in violin making, acoustically speaking, such as its traditional and beautiful shape. Which ornamentation to you speak off? > [@](#): > > Again, that’s to do with craftsmanship (which is a little different to acoustical expertise in choosing pieces of spruce), but given the appropriate materials I don;t see why it need be such a dark art. I think for you to find out and to see how hollow and ubelievable all of this sounds in the ears of vioinists (and then I don’t even speak of violinbuilders) the only way is to build a violin yourself. Why don’t you try it? And I don’t believe that wood does not undergo changes while aging, let alone that it would not undergo change while aging under circumstances a violin that is regularly played on ages. I have here in front of me an almost black piece of wood shaped in the form of a Buddha somewhere in the 17the century. I definitely underwent changes while aging; It shows clearly when you take it and study the top of the head where little cracks appear. It is even more visible when you turn it upside down. There is a crack of almost 10 mm wide crossing the whole surface and mounting even a little upwarts on the back of the figure where it narrows and ends. I have some theory - which you probably will call an unscientific myth - that whenever a violin is not played regularly keeping the wood “alive” because it vibrates, it dries out and risks to crack, just like the Budha statue shows to have cracks due to the aging (= drying out) of the wood. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/143 "2004-12-19T01:27:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The latter - and it doesn’t “not matter _at all_”, rather its effect is minor. > Its vibrational and radiative properties, which are largely determined by the piece of wood you use for the top plate. So you’re saying that anybody with a modicum of violin-making skills, who happened upon the right piece of wood, would create something that sounds like a Strad? ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/144 "2004-12-19T09:03:44Z")
I’m getting we are really talking at cross-purposes. It seems we have the old joke about a mathematician being unable to see the difference between a donut and a coffee cup. It may well be that there are _from an acoustic_ viewpoint no great perceptible differences: the way the sound is modified/amplified/propagated may be rather similar in all cases. That doesn’t surprise us, as we’re talking about violins which are supposed to be largely alike, as they form a single class of instruments. However, the differences that exist, and the result in playability/auditory experience _do_ matter a lot to humans. That the instruments only show a tiny difference is no reason to disregard that, unless you want to pass a law to say that the acoustic measurements are the proper measure for aesthetical experience. In the same way the mathematician could try to say we are in error to distinguish between a donut and a coffee cup. (or a chemical engineer might say that two dishes should taste the same as they contain largely the same ingredients) I notice in your statements a continuous elision between _no_ difference and no _large_ difference. Only the first statement might be interesting and could support your conclusions to some extent; the second statement is pretty meaningless for the musical experience. As long as there is a difference, that shows that indeed people do differentiate on actual differences. The valuation of that experience is not the domain of the acoustician, and you shouldn’t try to appropriate that. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/145 "2004-12-19T13:33:32Z")
> [@](#): > > **Alde:** So you say all they learned is choosing the righ pieces of wood? Again, not _all_ they learned, but it is perhaps the _most important_ thing to learn. > [@](#): > > Which ornamentation to you speak off? The traditional and beautiful shape (along with stuff like the scrolled headstock). > [@](#): > > the only way is to build a violin yourself. Why don’t you try it? I am not **impugning** the vast skill necessary to make a top quality violin. I am **explaining** it. > [@](#): > > I have some theory - which you probably will call an unscientific myth - that whenever a violin is not played regularly keeping the wood “alive” because it vibrates, it dries out and risks to crack, just like the Buddha statue shows to have cracks due to the aging (= drying out) of the wood. Yes, I would call that a myth. If a violin’s storage conditions are as inappropriate as that Buddha’s clearly were, such that cracks and other indisputable _damage_ occured, the properties _would_ change for the worse. > [@](#): > > **GM** : So you’re saying that anybody with a modicum of violin-making skills, who happened upon the right piece of wood, would create something that sounds like a Strad? Yes. (Although one arguably simply could not “happen” across it - the selection process is absolutely essential to the master violin builder’s skill). > [@](#): > > **Tusc** : It seems we have the old joke about a mathematician being unable to see the difference between a donut and a coffee cup. Yet again, I remind you that I am a semi-professional musician _as well_. > [@](#): > > [However, the differences that exist, and the result in playability/auditory experience do matter a lot to humans. And those differences _can_ be picked up by eg. acoustic impedance and sound pressure measurements. > [@](#): > > The valuation of that experience is not the domain of the acoustician, and you shouldn’t try to appropriate that. Of course, and I do no such thing. I ask only whether you _really can_ perceive a particular difference. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/146 "2004-12-19T13:41:25Z")
[Check out this cite.](http://agnews.tamu.edu/dailynews/stories/BICH/Sep2203a.htm) A pretty damn good single blind test and a $5m Strad is found to be no better than a copy built within the last month or so. Oh yes, there will be nitpicks. It would have been different if different pieces wer played, the player had something against Strads, the audience weren’t well qualified enough (never mind that they were), the sky was the wrong shade of puce. Whatever. But those nitpicks are nothing even close to the glaring unreliability of non-blinded subjective opinions upon which many in this thread seem to rely IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/147 "2004-12-19T13:56:13Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Amass a large number of world-class violinists, instruct them when they can and cannot play which instruments, for months or years, have the panel pass judgement, and repeat the whole process several times to get numerous results for each pairing of violins? _No problem_??? Yes but you are applying one standard to one thing and one standard to another. You are saying that objective testing is useless unless it is perfect, but subjective opinions are fine although they are utterly imperfect. Or in other words, you need to acknowledge the basic contradiction inherent in saying that it is entirely logistically possible for a violinist to play CAI’s and ME’s well enough and often enough to arrive at a valuable (to you) subjective opinion, while refusing to acknowledge that it must therefore be logistically possible to conduct a pretty damn good (if not perfect) blind test to arrive at an objective (and therefore massively more valuable) result. > [@](#): > > Many of our arguments have been down the lines of _nobody knows_. Maybe some have been. But you have stated in black and white that CAI’s are audibly better than ME’s. Live with it or withdraw your comment, but don’t pretend that your position is neutral when it is not. > [@](#): > > Because nobody, at all, has a full understanding of the physical behaviour of a violin while being played. GorillaMan, either you are just not getting it or you are being disingenous. _ **Nothing** _ that I or anyone else has said contradicts this utter strawman. _ **Nothing** _ in the test I have proposed requires any understanding at all of the physical behaviour of the violin. > [@](#): > > And once again I will repeat myself that I don’t rule out new instruments being built that are preferred to Strads. Repeat yourself? Earlier you were saying they were audibly better. Do you resile from that now? If so, what are we arguing about that is relevant to the OP? Finally, you said earlier that it took months and years of playing a new instrument to get good on it. Note that in the blind test cited in my last post, the violinist had played the Strad before but had had _one day_ to play the newly built instrument (less than a month old). So the test was heavily biased to the Strad, and yet the conclusion was at best a draw. ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/148 "2004-12-19T14:08:36Z")
I have no quarrel with that cite. At best it shows that a modern violin builder can build a violin of equal quality, which no-one (at least not me) disputed. We’re discussing right now (which was also the OP’s question) whether there is a significant difference between the cheapest violin (or even a wooden shoe-box) and a top-class violin. I would kindly ask you to check [this website](http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~hojakr/violin1.html) where a scientist shows two samples of two different quality violins. The responses are indeed different, as his graphs shows. If you listen to the samples there is a significant difference in sound. If you can’t hear the difference, I’m afraid that you do not have a musical ear. Also, look at your own link. You see a clear difference in between the frequency spectra. Apparently those two spectra are both perceived by many people as being ‘good’ violins (yes, I realize there are more relevant aspects). Those links show that there are indeed objectively measurable differences between different violins. How these are valued, is an altogether different question. It may indeed be the case that a lot of people don’t like a Stradivarius; there are famous violinst who prefer other instruments. But again, that was not the OP’s question. SentienMeat fails to go into my argument, that there is a small difference in objective parameters which to musicians lead to a significant intersubjective difference in perceived musical quality. ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/149 "2004-12-19T14:23:05Z")
Rereading the previous posts, I realize I may sound a bit harsher than I should be. Princhester, thanks for your link, as that is an interesting experiment. I must admit that this gives me reason to reconsider my previous opinion that a violin has to be ‘played in’. I wonder whether that is the experience of violin builders in general, then, and why that wasn’t more generally know. Maybe there is a bit of mysticism. SentientMeat, I again think we may be talking at cross-purposes. I agree with you (or rather, accept your statement on the strength of your experience) that the material is the main influence on acoustics. A tin box will sound vastly different from a spruce box, and a spruce box and a violin will sound much more alike. But we’re not talking about those differences, we’re talking about differences between spruce boxes. Do you allow that there are preceptible differences between different spruce boxes? If so, our standpoints may be quite compatible. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/150 "2004-12-19T14:49:54Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Maybe some have been. But you have stated in black and white that CAI’s are audibly better than ME’s. Live with it or withdraw your comment, but don’t pretend that your position is neutral when it is not. > … > Repeat yourself? Earlier you were saying they were audibly better. Do you resile from that now? Calm down. After my first reply in the thread (which said ‘nobody does’ specifically in response to a _single part_ of the OP), I’ve acknowledged that it would be possible for a modern violin to be considered better, and you’ve found an example where this was the case. More importantly, I’ve at no point said that “they are audibly better”. I’ve said that _they are considered to be_ audibly better, _ **subjectively** _. I keep on having to emphasise that we’re talking about perception, and that whatever qualities the wooden box has, there’s NOTHING objective about the music produced. > [@](#): > > You are saying that objective testing is useless unless it is perfect, but subjective opinions are fine although they are utterly imperfect. The test I dismissed as logistically-impossible was one to proved that Strads (plural) are no better than good modern violins (plural). I didn’t say it was useless, just that it could never take place. The test you’ve linked to was different. It was to test a single modern violin against a single Strad. It doesn’t prove that it’s ‘better’ than _all_ Strads. And in case you hadn’t noticed, ‘perfect subjectivity’ is contradictory. So to criticise me for accepting imperfect subjectivity is just silly. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Again, not all they learned, but it is perhaps the most important thing to learn. Have you any evidence that this is considered the case by good violin makers? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/151 "2004-12-19T15:59:09Z")
> [@](#): > > **Tusc** : SentienMeat fails to go into my argument, that there is a small difference in objective parameters which to musicians lead to a significant intersubjective difference in perceived musical quality. I agree with this absolutely. > [@](#): > > But we’re not talking about those differences, we’re talking about differences between spruce boxes. Do you allow that there are preceptible differences between different spruce boxes? Absolutely. Sorry to keep harping on about that Colin Gough article, but it really does explain what I _am_ saying and what I’m _not_ even though it goes into a fair bit of technical detail which is a little (ahem) fiddly. > [@](#): > > \*\*GM:\*\*It was to test a single modern violin against a single Strad. It doesn’t prove that it’s ‘better’ than all Strads. It’s worth noting that there is just as much measurable difference _between_ Strads as that between a Strad and a non-Strad. Strads are undoubtedly excellent instruments, but I’m not sure one can say there’s a Strad ‘sound’. > [@](#): > > Have you any evidence that this is considered the case by good violin makers? Absolutely - I had the pleasure of meeting many of the most admired makers in the world at various conferences. All will tell you that the selection of the piece of spruce from which you will make the top plate is _the_ most important element in the entire process. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/152 "2004-12-19T21:15:19Z")
For me the most interesting thing about this test **Princhester** describes is that it is about comparing a Stradivarius with a _copy_, an attempt to make as good a **copy** as possible with the help of today’s techniques. The builder has a website which gives some information about how he works (made me very curious about how his creations sound “live”). The story brings me back to my earlier comment that it would be interesting having the possibility to hear Cremona instruments when they were _newly build_. I am inclined to think that tests like this (if done with other instruments and over a period of time, results confirming the first one and eachother) can give us an idea. It is however not such a given that the Stradivarius used in this test can be classified among the best, or is more like the violin I heard last year and that was disappointing (to me). \*\*SentientMeat \*\* I agree that by building a violin the wood is of course the first important thing to decide about (can you explain “spruce” because all this time I am in the dark about this). Yet in my opinion the difficulty when you found a piece of wood with excellent possibilities, is to find out and decide on _how_ to shape it to make it produce the maximum one possibly can get out of it. That, in addition to their knowledge to test wood before it was shaped, is what in my view made the distinction between builders. For as far as I understand this copyist does the same, measuring everything with the use of modern techniques using the craftmanship of the Cremona builders as his example, guidance and teaching. Does not mean he has no technique or craftsmanship. Neither means that his products can’t become compatible with their examples. He makes them for the sake of being compatible. If they really are and stay stable or get even better with aging, this can only be a very good news for violinists all over the world. > [@S.M](#): > > Yes, I would call that a myth. Maybe I’m not clear in my wording of what I wished to describe. > [@](#): > > If a violin’s storage conditions are as inappropriate as that Buddha’s clearly were, such that cracks and other indisputable damage occured, the properties would change for the worse. Many bad conditions occurred in which violins as old as we are talking about were stored. Having the possibility of closely monitored storage conditions is a recent development. Storage is however not what I refer to. The “cracks” in the statue come from within the block of wood itself. Nobody hacked on it, dropped it or whatever to give it the cracks it shows (maybe “cracks” is not the right word, but I don’t know how else to describe it) = there is no human intervention involved. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/153 "2004-12-20T07:21:56Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > More importantly, I’ve at no point said that “they are audibly better”. I’ve said that _they are considered to be_ audibly better, _ **subjectively** _. I keep on having to emphasise that we’re talking about perception, and that whatever qualities the wooden box has, there’s NOTHING objective about the music produced. Actually, the subjective qualifier is something you have added in this post. But in any event, I have always said that what should be tested is merely what people subjectively perceive to be better when they can’t see what instrument is being played. I really don’t know why are you are fighting this notion so hard, unless that burning smell is sacred cow steak. > [@](#): > > The test I dismissed as logistically-impossible was one to proved that Strads (plural) are no better than good modern violins (plural). I didn’t say it was useless, just that it could never take place. You’re laying on the qualifications thick and fast now but you didn’t before. You said “they” were better. Not that some were. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/154 "2004-12-20T10:09:36Z")
> [@](#): > > **Alde** : can you explain “spruce” because all this time I am in the dark about this Spruce is a kind of pine tree used in making musical instruments. It is considered the best wood to use because it is the stiffest, lightest kind of wood in nature (except balsa wood, which is unfortunately too weak to withstand the tension from the strings). The very stiffest, lightest pieces of spruce come from the very slow-growing trees at the tops of mountains (or in the cold conditions of the early 1700’s). Of course, _metal_ plates even stiffer and lighter still, but there is a problem with the lack of _damping_: the resonances would be _so_ resonant that Wolf tones would occur all over the place, leading to horribly dissonant notes. There is only one material which could possibly be better than spruce for making violins and guitars: **diamond**. Should they ever be able to grow diamond plates into a violin shape, it might produce a heck of a good sound as well as looking absolutely stunning! > [@](#): > > Does not mean he has no technique or craftsmanship. Of course, I repeat that I am _explaining_, not _impugning_. > [@](#): > > If they really are and stay stable or get even better with aging, this can only be a very good news for violinists all over the world. Agreed. Stradivarius undoubtedly made beautiful instruments of high quality, but today’s violinists must must give modern instruments a chance also, and violinists who bravely express a _preference_ for modern instruments must be taken seriously. There is an element of de Beers-like price fixing regarding antique violins, IMO. > [@](#): > > Nobody hacked on it, dropped it or whatever to give it the cracks it shows (maybe “cracks” is not the right word, but I don’t know how else to describe it) = there is no human intervention involved Well, a wooden Buddha is different in all kinds of ways - those cracks might have been present in the wood before it was carved (and a violin maker would simply not select such a piece of wood), it might have spent years or decades in direct sunlight or near a fireplace, and it might simply be made of a wood which, unlike spruce, is _prone_ to such cracks. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/155 "2004-12-20T11:14:01Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > There is an element of de Beers-like price fixing regarding antique violins, IMO Nonsense. And (I think) this is the first mention of the value of the instruments. Which is almost completely independent of the musical qualities. But there’s no ‘fixing’ going on - it’s pure market economics. They’re a highly-sought-after item, with very low availability. So people pay a lot for them. > [@Princhester](#): > > Actually, the subjective qualifier is something you have added in this post No, I brough it up in post #11. > [@](#): > > You said “they” were better. Not that some were. Oh, look, I dealt with that in post #11, too. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/156 "2004-12-20T11:26:03Z")
> [@](#): > > But there’s no ‘fixing’ going on - it’s pure market economics. Yes, like De Beers diamonds. My opinion is that the reputation of those antique violins are _articficially_ elevated to some extent compared to their modern counterparts, since those who _have_ paid such vast sums for them have an interest in keeping them so. I don’t think their antique nature explains the multi-million dollar price tags - after all, _furniture_ from that period is not inflated to such an extent. Can you imagine the effect on those who have made such an enormous investment if the acoustical _superiority_ of those instruments became widely questioned? They would still be valuable antiques, but their value compared to _right now_ woudl plummet. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/157 "2004-12-20T11:43:12Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > My opinion is that the reputation of those antique violins are _articficially_ elevated to some extent compared to their modern counterparts, since those who _have_ paid such vast sums for them have an interest in keeping them so. I don’t think their antique nature explains the multi-million dollar price tags - after all, _furniture_ from that period is not inflated to such an extent. How can they be ‘artificially’ inflated? If nobody wants to spend a million quid on one when it’s at Sotherbys, nobody’s putting a gun to anybody’s head forcing them to bid. And it makes far more sense to compare them to the prices paid for paintings, in which context they seem like a bargain! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/158 "2004-12-20T12:53:33Z")
Of course, but that million quid price tag is absed partly on the reputation of that instrument as being musically and acoustically _superior_ to the five grand one in the music shop next door - based on aesthetics, age, rarity and craftsmanship alone I would expect prices to be more like those of anitque Chippendales or the like (or, indeed, other _musical instruments_ of the time like those old guitars I mentioned). I merely suspect that if prominent violinists worldwide were to become convinced that modern violins _were_ comparable to Strads, those valuations would decrease, in some cases quite dramatically. That’s just a personal opnion, mind you - perhaps not suitable for GQ. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/159 "2004-12-20T13:48:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > based on aesthetics, age, rarity and craftsmanship alone I would expect prices to be more like those of anitque Chippendales or the like (or, indeed, other _musical instruments_ of the time like those old guitars I mentioned). Well you could be very wrong in that. It is the same as with paintings: nobody wants to pay the same price for a copy as for a genuine masterpiece. > [@](#): > > I merely suspect that if prominent violinists worldwide were to become convinced that modern violins _were_ comparable to Strads, those valuations would decrease, in some cases quite dramatically. That’s just a personal opnion, mind you - perhaps not suitable for GQ. I could do _something_ about crazy prices some collectors - merely taking such an instrument as an investment issue - now want to pay, but I doubt there would not be the same want for them among the musicians. Every musician (and especially those with repertoire connecting with the Cremona period) still would feel like wanting to hold one of these great violins, let alone having one to play on. If not for public performance (because it _could_ eventually become possible to make even better instruments in the future) then most certainly for the “connection” with the history of the musical period, with the makers of these great instruments and in addition with the great instrumentalists who had the instrument before. I think you can bet on it that everyone who plays Paganini would like to do that on his Guarnerius, if only once. About the Buddha: It is Chinese and I think made of walnut wood (or cherry wood, I can look that up if you want). The “cracks” were most certainly not in the block of wood when it was carved. At the head it is merely visible, at the bottom I guess it could become worrysome for the preservation of the piece (I take a guess that this shall take an other century). Thank you for explaining “spruce”. I merely play on violins, I have no clue about the wood that is sorted out to make them. If they are all “spruce” wood and the varnish is transparant, what causes the different colour tones and shades in the tones? You have a wide range of shades, even within the same instrument. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455/160 "2004-12-20T14:20:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **Alde** :Well you could be very wrong in that. It is the same as with paintings: nobody wants to pay the same price for a copy as for a genuine masterpiece. I suppose, but I still think that furniture is a better comparison than paintings, and genuine high quality 1700’s furniture simply does not command such vast prices even though it is rare, old and beautiful. However, you make a good point that musical instruments might be a special case in that one can _interact_ with them in what might be an emotionally profound experience. > [@](#): > > If they are all “spruce” wood and the varnish is transparant, what causes the different colour tones and shades in the tones? The back plate is usually made of maple, and western red cedar is sometimes (rarely) used on the top plate: it is considered to have a ‘warmer’ tone, perhaps because it is a little heavier than spruce and so can’t be accelerated as quickly by the same force (_ie._ the high frequencies are reduced a little). And the wood is _stained_ by the varnish - indeed, research suggests that Stradivarius just used standard high quality furniture varnish from the contemporary pharmacists: I’m pretty convinced that Joseph Nagyvary’s research into ‘secret’ varnish is a red herring. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-reputed-hifg-quality-of-stradivari-viulins-a-myth/279455.md?page=9)