POLL: pricing/condition choices for a Yamaha 321 euphonium

[bloke]

OK...
This is an ACTUAL poll...and thank-you very much for participating in my tongue-in-cheek polls.

Here (for far-far-far too long) has sat a Yamaha 4-valve in-line non-compensating model 321 euphonium.
They are easy to play, and - even post-Japan-era - remain popular.

This is a Japan-era one, and features dingy factory lacquer.

My question is in regards to how far I should "go" with it.

I ALWAYS believe that it is best to sell instruments clean and dent-free, but this question has to do with the finish.

(Just fwiw, the hard case shows age, but is functional.)

I'm trying to decide whether to just offer it clean, dent-free, and with dingy lacquer, whether to strip, buff, and silver plate it, or whether to strip off the dingy lacquer.
(My personal bias is always that dingy/worn factory lacquer is better than no lacquer, because it clearly demonstrates that no one has ever "buffed the crap out of" an instrument.

[LeMark]

It seems most people looking at those models just want something cheap, so I would pick the first option

[matt g]

This has also been a popular double with trombone and tuba players in the past because it is so easy to play. And most of those people aren’t too concerned about how the finish looks, it would seem, as compared to overall playability and condition.

[tokuno]

I swim in the amateur sea, so all the 321s I've bought, sold, and otherwise encountered have either been beater school horns or cherished (i.e. pretty) personal possessions. It's not a merely utilitarian performance tool to cash a check.
Right or wrong, their (consistent) playing capability is assumed, so they're a "safe" purchase for the wallet-holder (players might give a prospective 321 purchase a brief toot to check the valves, but that's about it), so appearance is a (the?) big differentiation. Whether it's assumed that prettiness indicates that the horn has been little-abused, satisfies an aesthetic ideal, confers status, assures the parent that the horn will be well cared-for or something else, *shrug*. It just seems to matter.

If the priority is to move the horn with less (post-prep) fuss, then:
make it pretty (silver)

If the priority is to minimize fuss (assuming opportunity cost, storage, etc., is trivial), then:
leave it leprous, swap in a large shank receiver, and wait for the right buyer: high-value tool seeker

I'm of course side-stepping providing an important feedback: How much would folks in my sphere pay for the different grades of 321? . . . . depends . . .

[WC8KCY]

Carrots

All kidding aside, I vote for option one.

A horn with worn lacquer enticingly whispers "Some musician(s) loved me enough to wear off my lacquer, unlike a Mark VI sax that still has good original lacquer because it doesn't play worth a damn."

I have a two vintage instruments that were overbuffed prior to relacquering. Their bell rosettes are barely visible. I always wonder if they were sold because the heavy buffing and relacquering changed their playing qualities.

[jtm]

This has also been a popular double with trombone and tuba players in the past because it is so easy to play. And most of those people aren’t too concerned about how the finish looks, it would seem, as compared to overall playability and condition.

I don't get mine out often (usually playing C tuba, and only for fun), but I had a chance to play euphonium part with a two other actual in-person people today. It was SO easy to play. Like, ridiculously, not even having to think about it easy.

[jtm]

[3] the dingy lacquer stripped, the surface highly-polished, bright silver plated, and offered for $700 more than [1].

Would you be plating yourself, or do you send it out for that?

[rodgeman]

I think it broadens the market to have a uniform finish - whether it is all stripped or all stripped and polished. Middle or high schoolers will be much more apt to choose on in that respect. I had an older Besson Euphonium that played well but the lacquer was uneven. I chose to have the lacquer stripped and a satin scratch finish applied. I believe it helped me get a higher price than what I had in the horn.

[Three Valves]

....a satin scratch finish applied.

That’s it!! Satin lacquer outside, shiny inside.

[acemorgan]

I'm an economics teacher. This is very similar to a scenario I share with my students each semester. I assume those price increases completely cover the described repairs. Do they just cover, or is there a small profit? Then: is that profit enough to pay you for the additional hassle? And if there is no profit, why do it?

From a marketing standpoint, is there a larger pool of buyers for the "as is," or for the fully restored? Judging from your poll, I would guess the former.

[bloke]

The “satin“ option is interesting…
It had not occurred to me, and that is part of the value of this forum.

[Mary Ann]

I went for a slightly battered but excellent player for less money than I could have gotten something prettier.

[Three Valves]

I just changed my mind to "faux wood lacquer"

[Doc]

I just changed my mind to "faux wood lacquer"

It's purdy, ain't it?

[bloke]

I have nearly 2 yards of beautiful walnut grain contact paper…

[Three Valves]

Nothing says 70s better!!

[YorkNumber3.0]

.

[Pauvog1]

Normally I'd say pretty it up, but I think the cheaper option would sell faster during the COVID weirdness. Schools are still virtual here and large group performance opportunities are pretty limited in my neck of the woods.

[cjk]

Are these still the typical tuba player's euphonium? Did I not regularly see these in the hands of pros whose primary instrument was not the euphonium in past decades?

[matt g]

Are these still the typical tuba player's euphonium? Did I not regularly see these in the hands of pros whose primary instrument was not the euphonium in past decades?

That’s my thinking regarding USA orchestral players since the non-compensating valves line up better with expectations while playing. Especially when the dependent fifth valve is added.