In a highly uncertain as well as booming economic planet, those with seemingly unlimited funds continue to search for assets as meaningful investments. We went through the cryptocurrency mania, the soaring prices in the fine watchmaking industry (Rolex being the extreme example), while other more traditional assets like paintings, antiques, and oldtimer cars continue to attract interest.
Fine classical instruments, particularly violins, also break one record after another. And although their aesthetics and rarity keep adding value, one crucial aspect separates them from other assets: these are specialized instruments for specialized people.
When an instrument fetches over 9 million, sold by an amateur violinist to an undisclosed collector, and never sees the light of the day again, this constitutes a sort of a crime. Recognizing this reality, business conglomerates, public benefit foundations, and other cultural institutions with means have invested heavily in such instruments, only to lend them to worthy emerging or established artists shortly after. And this is how it should be done.
Of course, nobody can accuse the next Thomas Crown of acquiring an item for an astronomic price just because he can and enjoy it in a well-kept/regulated display in his living room or office. But such practice defeats the instrument’s purpose, makes no contribution other than self-gratification, and above all, loses in value (no matter how slowly) since the violin does not evolve further in the hands of a master player.
Important violins usually have a long tradition of players who owned and played them, forming a symbiotic relationship. Thus, many of them bare the name of a past celebrated owner as their nickname. Violins in a safe, bank vault, museum display, or living room next to a Monet or a Ferrari are nothing but orphan items in search of life.
With so many highly qualified violinists trying to make it, one must wonder if auctions for such assets should have certain obligations attached.