Tbeers said:
I believe they are now $5800 with a 3 year wait.
To me, this is like the "is Miles Davis overrated?" debate. Lipkins bows are fabulous, but they still cost more than I think they are worth. In 10 years a new one will probably cost less than it does now -- once every major orchestral bassist has one already.
I played a Vigneron copy made by a local bassist last night. And then I compared it to the amazingly nice/valuable original. The differences were not huge. And then the guy tells me he can make me a bow in a week (40 hours of work), for $1250. What am I supposed to think? Lipkins bows, to me, are not $4500 better.
Chacun a son gout.
I can't tell you how many bows I "test drove" before settling on my Lipkins bow, including a Grunberger, a Fuchs, and a number of bows by Reid Hudson. To me, without disparaging any other very good bows, the Lipkins bow *IS* that much better -- certainly enough better to justify the cost differential to me.
Obviously, not everyone will agree. There are people who think a top plywood bass is plenty good enough, and if that meets their needs, God bless 'em.
But the notion that Lipkins bows will decrease in price is unconvincing. Sue doesn't make a lot of bows, and those who sell bows can't keep them in stock at any price charged so far. She's getting better. She has good pernambuco.
Ask yourself, what basses by good makers have gone down in price? Not Hachez. Not Arvi. Not Lakeberg & Baer. Not Pollmann. Why should bows be different? For that matter, have prices gone down on bows by Fuchs, Grunberger, or other top makers? I don't think so.
Quality sells, and it sells at the top of the market. I don't know of anyone who makes a higher quality bow than Sue these days, though, as Ken says, at a certain price range personal taste plays a great role in individual's decisions.