Thread: $10 million for a violin for Australian orchestra

Myth no 1: Strad used pine soaked in the Baltic sea for 200 years and lovingly hand-dried by virgins in the special forest air of the mountains of Italy. (Choose your own variation on that theme.)

Strad used all kinds of wood, from the cheap and nasty to the beautifully figured. He even used pieces with knots in them!

Myth no 2: Strad and all the Cremonese had secret formulas which they jealously guarded.

The "secrets" were well known in Strad's day and are well known now. You can look them up in books. You can make Strad's varnish yourself if you have the ingredients.

People who have studied this conclude that the wood is the least important factor. Next most important is the varnish. It has a definite effect on the sound of the violin. Most important factor is the quality of craftsmanship. Perfectly fitting pieces and Strad did it all with a sharp knife! No sandpaper in those days.

Myth no 3: Strad had magic hands and could do special things with wood that other people can't.

Strad was indeed an expert craftsman. But luthiers today can and do make violins every bit as good as Strads, del Gesus, etc. The one thing they don't have and can't have is that little label with "Stradivarius Cremonensis Faciebat" inside.

There’s plenty of Strad myth-busting in books, in publications, e.g. American Lutherie, and on the net. Check them out.

The truth is more prosaic than the myth. Simply, we have a superior artisan who made excellent violins, good enough to make quality from varied materials. So good that people want to play them to this day.

Incidentally, every Strad in use has had major modifications over the years. Usually the fingerboard has been replaced, often the entire neck, tops have been removed and patched umpteen times, etc. You could argue that they're not truly Strads any more. And did these extensive modifications dilute some of that Strad magic? No, because the alterations and repairs were carried by out expert craftsmen as well.

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

I believe it was a gift,

Sounds more like a fiddle to me (Tax that is)

Old instruments V New, i.e. Old wood V New wood - I recently was fortunate to go to Ireland, my wife’s cousin had a brand 'spankin' new Martin D-28 which I was able to play for a bit and it played 'Different' to my D-28 which is in its 31st year, I'm not such a good player and a D-28 is probably wasted on me but the cousins new one just didn't quite feel/play/sound the same and there are lots of reasons that could be.

Wood age, setup, strings, emotion/mood when playing, construction glue/braces very hard to quantify what suits a musician, I guess a better player could make them both sound sweet.

I also was lucky enough to play a couple of (George) Lowden guitars and despite the high price tags and the talent of musician that owned them I didn't like playing them at all, bit nervous after hearing how much they cost in English Pounds and doing a quick conversion to $AU.

So I appreciate the results of the blind tests could be inconclusive but agree if the player feels it is a great instrument they may play better.

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

Whats the big deal

5. How many people posting here moan about paying more than a dollar a litre for petrol but happily pay twice that for a bottle of water? People generally are horribly inconsistent when determining the monetary value of an item.

Cheers Martin

Jerry