What would you pay for a Gibson today?

[Capt. E]

I recently acquired a Gibson A2 in wonderful condition with the OHSC along with the original Gibson Sales Receipt. It sold for $59.59 on Jan 3, 1920. I was curious what that would be today and found one calculator that said it would be $740.34 in 2015 dollars. Since a clean all original A2 with case sells for up to $1500, I would say they have appreciated nicely in value.

One interesting thing is my A2 has a serial number of 54895. Since it was sold Jan 3, 1920, it was probably manufactured in 1919, but the sequence in the Mandolin Archives puts it in 1920. My guess is the Gibson sales slip was probably an order and the instrument was shipped at a later date. However, the serial number is on the slip.

[Timbofood]

How cool to find the reciept! Does it say where the dealer was? Who?

[Capt. E]

Sold in Chicago directly from Gibson. Even has the buyer's address.

Made a mistake on reading: Sales amount looks like $55.50... $15.50 down and $10.00/month after that with 6% interest. $10 went a long way back then.

[Tobin]

Very cool! Having the original documentation really can increase the collectibility down the road. I sometimes feel like it's silly to keep the original receipt for my instruments for future owners, but you never know. Someone could appreciate it in a hundred years.

[Pick&Grin]

Wow, that's a rare item to have, Capt. E! I'd love to know the history behind my old banjos. Enjoy!

[Timbofood]

That is just so cool!
Just looked a little closer at the Bill of sale, I think I have driven down that stretch of Kenilworth! I will have to look at the place next time I am in the city.

[stevedenver]

well, respectfully, I don't agree with the premise regarding relative/adjusted value in post 1.

first part of 'why"? changes in dollar value are only somewhat accruate over shorter periods of time, because of technology changes, labor cost, market demand, etc.

simplistic as this is, if it sold for $55.00 in 1920, somewhat towards the end of the mando craze btw, and Gibson was a top factory maker, then I would suggest, that the current Gibson/Collings/Pava/Norhtfield prices of 'equivalent' A's is the most accurate comparison-ie about $2.5 -3k. I think, obviously, that to use the exact VINTAGE model as in the OP is an apples to oranges comparison for purposes of monetary equivalence. I think one should compare the THEN new Gibson A2 with a NOW new A of similar build and appointments.

Another example, again, only partially analogous, is the fact that I bought a one year old Gibson LP Custom, used, but like new, in 1971 for $350.00. New price then was about $450. There was no internet, and sales were simply based on local market. Today a current 1-3 year old used Gibson LP custom would sell about the $2.5K range.

Oddly, only a few years back, pre crash, the same used guitar would have sold about $3.5K-nearly ten times the amount I paid some forty years later, ie a ten fold increase, but the market was much stronger then, I think. Point, I think current market for equivalents is a better benchmark.

yes the old A is 'worth' more than its original price, but, imho, worth less than current equivalent new offerings.

[JeffD]

Its a dicey analysis. Those "present equivalent of a historic amount" calculators take into account a whole lot of cultural stuff, and are likely an aide in a general sense. I use them a lot when I read. For example a crime novel written in the 60s or the 30s, and they get all excited about a sum of money found or stolen, so I get on line and see what that sum would be equivalent to today, in order to see what all the hubbub is about.

But when applied to any particular object that I might know about I have had mixed results matching their calculations. There are so many significant trends related to any specific object which can make it an exception.

A realtor friend of mine tells me that those calculators often seem to match things like the cost of a house, but even there you have to pick your years carefully to avoid anomalies specific to house building technology, or cultural trends about the importance of owning your own home.

So while it is cool and interesting to know the original cost of a vintage mandolin, I don't know that any comparison to today is meaningful, and especially to get a gauge on how a vintage has appreciated above cost - I think its shaky ground all around.

But I don't believe anything.

[JeffD]

I know that my own vintage instruments has appreciated significantly since I bought them, but all in all they has been a really poor investment. Just about any major fund has performed better.

On the other hand you can't play Avalon Quickstep on a stock fund.

[FLATROCK HILL]

Its a dicey analysis. Those "present equivalent of a historic amount" calculators take into account a whole lot of cultural stuff, and are likely an aide in a general sense. I use them a lot when I read. For example a crime novel written in the 60s or the 30s, and they get all excited about a sum of money found or stolen, so I get on line and see what that sum would be equivalent to today, in order to see what all the hubbub is about.

I do those 'value' comparisons too. When you consider that the 'Girl in the Blue Velvet Band' planted a "diamond that was worth ten grand" in Bill's pocket way back in the '40s, it's a wonder he ever got out of jail!

( 'Mandolin content' ...tenuous at best.)

[Capt. E]

yes the old A is 'worth' more than its original price, but, imho, worth less than current equivalent new offerings.

I agree these dollar comparisons aren't worth much. Very hard thing to do with so many variables involved. And comparing modern instruments to vintage is also pretty impossible over all, but your comments are pretty much what the current market shows. A new Pava for $2500-$3000 vs a vintage Gibson A2 for $1500. Different instruments, different sound etc. Fun to try sometimes.

And yes, a poor investment. That has been concluded many times here on the Cafe.

[mandroid]

mid 70's I got an A40 for $150..

[Timbofood]

Mid '70's I got an A-50 for $125.00! Shuoulda, shoulda, shoulda. Didn't, didn't, didn't! Oh well, oh well, oh well.
Spent the money on fast living.

[David Lewis]

Mid '70's I got an A-50 for $125.00! Shuoulda, shoulda, shoulda. Didn't, didn't, didn't! Oh well, oh well, oh well.
Spent the money on fast living.

Reminds me of the English soccer player - George Best? - when asked: 'What happened to your money?' replied, Most of it went on alcohol, fast women and fast cars. The rest of it I squandered'

[David Lewis]

Re: the value - it's actually not a bad rule of thumb, allowing for the variables, many of which become unfathomable. However, looking at it, the 60.00 as a proportion of someone's wage compared to the 740... hmmm.... now there's a comparison which makes things interesting.

Thank you for posting it, and the receipt - very interesting indeed.

[barney 59]

In 1920 we were on the gold standard. If you paid $20 for something you were basically handing over an ounce of gold. $20 was a lot and people were paying rather high prices for many things in 1920 which seems to be a rather high inflationary period. I read somewhere that the average grocery budget for a family in 1920 was $16 and interestingly enough it went down every year after that until 1931 when it was approximately half that amount. 1933 we left the gold standard and silver ended in the sixties which I noticed because right at that time a milky way went from 5 to 10 cents. Nixon converted us completely to a "fiat" system which is, from all I can tell, the value of the firmness of a hand shake. Carter got caught in the flack of the inflationary period that followed that change. The standard that is used to judge inflation is reserved for "durable goods" like a bulldozer maybe and a mandolin possibly. What matters to a mooch such as myself is the cost of the things I really need --food,clothing,fuel,housing,medical care these "volatile" items are left out of that calculation. When I see the cost of bread or milk double over a couple of years and someone says that the rate of inflation is 3% I have to think "To who!?" Handcrafted custom mandolins left out if you think of the cost of good quality manufactured mandolins. Kentuckys and Northfields maybe and based on the costs of the real things were all need, I think we might be getting a bargain compared to someone buying a similar item in 1920.

[C. Welter]

Oh what would you pay? (In exchange), Oh what would you pay? (In exchange), What would you pay for a Gibson today...

[Capt. E]

Oh what would you pay? (In exchange), Oh what would you pay? (In exchange), What would you pay for a Gibson today...

Hey, that could be a good title for a Bluegrass song!

[dhergert]

>> In 1920 we were on the gold standard. If you paid $20 for something you were basically handing over an ounce of gold.

Interesting analogy.

So in 1920 for a ~$60 mandolin, roughly the equivalent of 3 ounces of gold. Today's value for that 3 ounces of gold would be $3445.50(US, 24K).

Gibson's least expensive new mandolin listed on their website today, the F9, sells for $3,749.

I couldn't find any new A style mandolins on their website.

[Capt. E]

Comparing gold to buying power is pretty tricky. Start with the creation of the Federal Reserve before WWI and the resultant expansion of the money supply (the explosion of Wall Street in the 1920's and the 1929 crash would not have happened without it. Inflation from the creation of this country to the early 1900's was perhaps 1%). The whole "Free Silver" movement of the late 1800's also had long lasting effects. Then there is FDR and the elimination of gold as currency in 1933 (that was very important in preventing stopping deflation). But, I find your analogy above to be pretty good and agree that a Gibson A-2 if made today would likely retail near $3K. At least as much as a Pava "Player".