Geoff wooff has made around 200 sets of pipes,and of those 200 sets of pipes Geoff himself reckons that maybe only two dozon are actually being played.Alain Froment has made alot more sets than Geoff and if we were really optimistic lets say that half were being played . That means that there is at least 100 sets of Froment pipes out there not being played.
With this in mind do you think it would fair if pipemakers were to give out the names of people that they have made pipes for in the past to inquire if they would be willing to sell them?
I wouldn’t think any pipemaker likes the idea ,that the pipes they put so much work into making are not being played,and would be happy to see them sold on if it meant that they would be played.
Well the sad thing is, there are earnest and promising pipers, who don’t have a great set of pipes, then there are people who do have great sets of pipes, but have thrown in the towel…
If this is, in fact, the case, then maybe the pipemakers themselves could contact their customers to see if they would like to get a refund on a set that was purchased but is not being played. That would avoid the privacy issue of releasing names of customers without their consent. Then the pipemaker himself could sell the set at today’s rate, (hopefully) make a handsome profit, and have more happy customers!
I don’t think a pipe making business would want to buy back used pipes with the intention of trying to turn a profit. Even if a maker was able buy back pipes at an incredibly good rate (well below market value) and sell them for the going rate he would still only turn a small profit.
Why would the owner of the pipes want to sell the pipes back to the maker at such a low price? Most of the cost of pipes pays for craftsmanship so why would a maker want to pay for his own labor?
I never thought of the pipemaker buying back the pipes but it sounds like a very good idea and heres how it could work.
A pipemaker approaches a customer he sold a set of pipes too ten years ago for £3000 ,he offers the customer £4000 for the pipes and sells them on for £5000.The past customer makes a grand and the pipemaker makes a grand.
I think it would be a very feasible option for a maker who is coming to the end of their pipemaking career but could still make some money from pipes he has made in the past .
I can think of several reasons for all of the above, but if one is thinking in terms of money, they may not be obvious…
A maker’s output is often very limited, in the great scheme of things. Few makers will produce as many as 100 instruments in their lifetime. For some, each instrument is like a child - in which case the maker likes to know where each instrument is, whether it is being played, and whether it is in good condition. Some players understand this and also, out of love for the instrument, like to give makers the opportunity to refurbish and/or overhaul their instruments when they change hands.
As far as economics go, this can make sense as well, because a used instrument that has been recently serviced and vetted by the maker is worth much more than an unwarranted secondhand instrument. A maker with a long waiting list is probably beseiged by people looking for an instrument in a more moderate length of time, and many folks would be happier with a used instrument refurbished by the maker than with a long wait; likewise, the maker may exercise some additional influence over where the instrument is re-homed.
I do think there is a bit of mythology (in the sense of something meaningful but not entirely factually accurate) in these stories of how many instruments are actually being played. I find it hard to believe that 90% of the Wooff instruments out there, for instance, are actually gathering dust in closets. It may well be that fewer than 10% are being played in public, and maybe 50% are being played less than once a week. I only know of a couple of unplayed Wooff sets - and at least one of them is indeed for sale…
Most owners must know what the market value of such instruments is - if they have really given up on the pipes, or just on the Wooff set, I would expect more of those owners to put them up for sale. Perhaps it’s a case of dreams dying hard!
Most owners must know what the market value of such instruments is - if they have really given up on the pipes, or just on the Wooff set, I would expect more of those owners to put them up for sale. Perhaps it’s a case of dreams dying hard!
Well of course I mean, if you invested a great deal of money, then waited a great deal of time to get it, would you be quick to get rid your pipes? There’s only two reasons I could think of a person doing this when they truely have given up:
They need the money.
They don’t need the money, but they have a good heart and realise that instruments shouldn’t go unplayed, so might as well sell it to somebody who will play them and take care of them.
I’d also agree with the dreams dying hard bit as well, some people are just stubborn! (like me)
Some of the greatest pipemakers of the past have died in poverty.Brian Howard has said that some of the makers he knows would not be in business if it were not for their working wivies. A maker has admitted that due to limited earning he could not afford to have children.
I think if a pipemaker has an oppertunity to make some money from his labour he should grasp it with both hands
I think the money-making-thing (however unfortunately very important) might not be the only one in pipemaking. Musical instruments are no articles of consume (like computers, cars, refridgerators…) but means to make art. Traditional music is art. It may be „folk-art“ (We have the word „Kleinkunst“. What is your equivalent?), but nonetheless it is art – though some organisations may want us to beleive that it is sports – all Ireland champion of … / all Ireland champion of painting. We (and especially us „primadonnas“) know that it is an „obsession“. Why should pipemakers be any different?
Pipemaking is one of the last remaining „trades“ where one person still can oversee and handle the whole process: You start from scratch (you judge plants, alloys, „good quality imitation ivory" ) and end with the set. Pipemaking consits of many „trades“ and „subjects“: Woodturning, Turning, Joining, Plumbing, Pneumatics, Acoustics, Musical Theory, Musical History … etc. Though involved with all these things, basically makers are artisans in a creative process. People like Kenna, Eagan, Taylors … knew this very well and so do their modern followers. A maker can be proud of a set for many reasons and making money may be only one of them (If this were the only one you can be very sure that he would do something else). He will definitely care for his „products“ and wants them to be played but I am afraid that he will leave the „buying-back business“ to other people.
I can’t see this idea working for a number of reasons.
The idea of makers passing on to potential buyers the names and addresses of owners who don’t use their sets is a breech of confidentiality by the maker and is probably illegal. If the pipemaker knows a set is not being played and offers to buy it back himself and subsequently sell it on, that’s another thing entirely.
But the owner can’t be forced to sell it and will probably only sell it at a profit or at least at a good price. Particularly if, as Rory suggests, the maker can buy back for 4k and sell on for 5k. I’ve a few old odds and ends that I’ve accumulated over the years and if someone contacted me and offered to buy them, I’d do a little research on their value before agreeing a price.
By the way, a 20% margin is very small and probably would not make it worth the makers time, considering the time spent away from the workshop, restoring the unused set to playing condition (new reeds, etc), the warrantee for the new owner, shipping and insurance, etc. To make it profitable, the maker would need a much greater gross profit on the purchase and resale of each set - probably closer to 50% to 80% over the purchase price.
It makes sense for a pipe owner to approach the original maker before attempting to sell a set - it increases the market value of the pipes, as I said before. Now, the maker may decline to look at the set, but more likely he will be interested in checking it. He may offer to buy the set, or arrange for a buyer; alternately the seller may ask the maker for a quote to refurbish the set. Either way, it’s likely to be an attractive prospect for most parties involved.
Transport of the set may indeed be a problem if transatlantic shipping is required - otherwise I think it’s a winning proposition.
I don’t think that such a large “commission” is required at all, for this to be an attractive proposition to the maker. If all that is needed is a bit of polish and a couple of reeds, less than 10% of the market value of the instrument would be plenty. As Hans and others have pointed out, there are forces more important than economic ones at work here.
With this in mind do you think it would fair if pipemakers were to give out the names of people that they have made pipes for in the past to inquire if they would be willing to sell them?
I agree that it makes sense for the owner to approach the maker when wanting to sell - I’ve done it myself.
The other idea that the maker buys back the set and subsequently sells it on, is also unfeasable. Let’s look at the pounds, shillings and pence for a moment. Rory suggested selling a set back to the maker at 4K and the maker would resell the set for 5K giving a 1k gross profit.
I would estimate that a maker would need to be prepared to dedicate 4 or 5 days of his time to such a transaction - repairing and rereeding the old set, negotiation with buyer and seller, dealing with buyer’s subsequent “warrantee” issues, going back and forth to the post office.
Also, of the $1000 gross profit, 25% would go in transaction costs (shipping, materials, telephone, mileage, etc), So in the end, you’ve missed nearly a week in your workshop for about $750 gross profit. Out of this, you’ve got to run your workshop, buy materials (pay an apprentice?), pay rent or mortgage and what’s left is taxed. Is this what a pipemaker does?
Brokering the deal (where the maker doesn’t buy back the set but vets it for a fee) would probably cut down on expenses and risk. In that instance a 10% cut would probably be profitable, but I suspect we still won’t see many pipemakers in highpowered Italian sports cars…
OK the original may not be a good one,but the idea of a pipemaker buying back pipes from past customers and selling them on ,I think could work.The example of 3K,4Kand 5K was only for ease of numbers sake and I,m sure the numbers could be more beneficial to the maker.
I dont think it would take 4or5 days for a maker to reed and polish a set of pipes he made himself and if they needed more work than that it would firstly be reflected in the price offered to the past customer and any work carried out would be added to the price as they are sold on.Also any carrage costs are paid by the buyer , all going togeather to maintain the pipemakers profit margin.
I think this whole idea would work best for a maker who has been making pipes for a long time and has a long waiting list(wooff and Froment) as the past customer might respectfully not charge the maker for buying back the pipes as much as he would on the open market,and then the maker could approach people on his waiting list ,cutting down on any advertising that might have to be done otherwise.
RORY
PS I would not be surprised if the likes of Wooff or Froment were not in some way doing this already
There is the issue of constant improvements in the pipemakers designs, however. Older sets probably don’t represent the current state of the pipemakers’ art, and they might rather spend their time on new sets rather than refurbishing old sets. But this is all supposition on my part…
) and end with the set. Pipemaking consits of many „trades“ and „subjects“: Woodturning, Turning, Joining, Plumbing, Pneumatics, Acoustics, Musical Theory, Musical History … etc. Though involved with all these things, basically makers are artisans in a creative process. People like Kenna, Eagan, Taylors … knew this very well and so do their modern followers. A maker can be proud of a set for many reasons and making money may be only one of them (If this were the only one you can be very sure that he would do something else). He will definitely care for his „products“ and wants them to be played but I am afraid that he will leave the „buying-back business“ to other people.