Thunderbird Club

[PillO]

It's all about fandom or the significance an item may have played in history and in this case, music history.

I'm not sure that a Felix Pappalardi or Mountain fan exists to the level of fandom that this seller needs.

Sorry. I still don't understand. I can understand the history without owning the item.

I've seen through his ploy. He posts this ad, lets it ride awhile, donates it to a "Hard Rock" and takes a $65K write off.

The IRS would have trouble with that. You get a write off for the value of the item. Asking $1mm and NOT getting it does not establish the value. The last verified sale (between arms-length parties, so no selling to your brother and buying back at the same price) sets the value that the IRS would use. So, if you were to take the value as the offered price, you risk charges of tax fraud. Your tax preparer would also be on the hook as would the charity that provides the receipt. Charities and museums take this very seriously as they can lose their tax exempt status for engaging in any activity like this.

 

[PillO]

As I think about this, I will even go a step further. I see no value in the artist signature instruments. I would not pay a premium for a "Geddy Lee" or "Jaco Pastorius" bass. The association does nothing for me.

Some may point out that I do own a Jack Casady bass. It isn't available as a non-signature model and I love the sound that I make with it. I actually don't care that it is made to JC's specs.

 

[GonePlaid]

Sorry. I still don't understand. I can understand the history without owning the item.



The IRS would have trouble with that. You get a write off for the value of the item. Asking $1mm and NOT getting it does not establish the value. The last verified sale (between arms-length parties, so no selling to you brother and buying back at the same price) sets the value that the IRS would use. So, if you were to take the value as the offered price, you risk charges of tax fraud. Your tax preparer would also be on the hook as would the charity that provides the receipt. Charities and museums take this very seriously as they can lose their tax exempt status for engaging in any activity like this.

Being serious for a moment(which I wasn't in the donation post), IRS doesn't set "historical value" If they went by "last verified sale" No object would ever appreciate in value and there would be no "collector's items". Old stuff would just be trashed- including historical items like flags, presidential letters, territorial maps, et al. I guess it would take a reputable appraiser, familiar with the type of merch being appraised to set a value.

 

[ppiluk]

As I think about this, I will even go a step further. I see no value in the artist signature instruments. I would not pay a premium for a "Geddy Lee" or "Jaco Pastorius" bass. The association does nothing for me.

Some may point out that I do own a Jack Casady bass. It isn't available as a non-signature model and I love the sound that I make with it. I actually don't care that it is made to JC's specs.

I agree with you on this point. I have owned one signature guitar and when it came time to trade it, I had a heck of a time getting rid of it!

My favourite thing to see are adds for modified signature models. I once had a guy try and trade a Geddy Lee Jazz bass body with a different Fender Jazz neck. I had to explain to him the neck was what made the Geddy Lee bass special. He couldn't understand why I wouldn't make the trade. He pestered me for weeks before he finally gave up.

 

[PillO]

Being serious for a moment(which I wasn't in the donation post), IRS doesn't set "historical value" If they went by "last verified sale" No object would ever appreciate in value and there would be no "collector's items". Old stuff would just be trashed- including historical items like flags, presidential letters, territorial maps, et al. I guess it would take a reputable appraiser, familiar with the type of merch being appraised to set a value.

The IRS does not care what transactions private parties undertake amoungst themselves (as long as applicable taxes are paid). But it does carefully scrutinize the value of items donated to tax exempt organizations as it directly impacts tax payable by the donor. With illiquid items, it can take a significant effort to establish value. In fact, I am aware of cases in which tax authorities have disputed the value of items with clearly established values (shares in public companies traded on an established exchange).

 

[dukeorock]

As I think about this, I will even go a step further. I see no value in the artist signature instruments. I would not pay a premium for a "Geddy Lee" or "Jaco Pastorius" bass. The association does nothing for me.

Some may point out that I do own a Jack Casady bass. It isn't available as a non-signature model and I love the sound that I make with it. I actually don't care that it is made to JC's specs.

I agree completely with this. The JC bass is affordable too. No premium paid for the name. Don’t get paying a fortune for celebrity owned stuff

 

[GBassNorth]

I am just not like other people. I really can't get my head around why something owned by someone who is/was famous is worth a premium over an example comparable in age and condition.

For many things I can construct an argument why someone wold value something differently from me (higher or lower) even if I do not subscribe to that valuation. But celebrity ownership does absolutely nothing and I can not come up with any reasonable explanation why value might differ. The only argument that could hold is the greater fool theory - that I could buy the item at an inflated price and sell to a greater fool at an even more inflated price. The problem with the greater fool theory is that sooner or later you encounter the greatest fool, and you might be seeing him/her in the mirror.

Can anyone explain to me why I might want to own a celebrity owned item and why I should pay a premium?

As someone who does have a number of celebrity owned instruments I'd largely agree with you. With good provenance one could see maybe a small premium for the "cool" factor. Much like owning a limited run instrument.

Where the real difference starts for me is "icon" instruments. Those instruments that are uniquely associated with a key player and have been used on a popular recording(s). Think Sir Paul's Hoffner used on the recording of Come Together, or George Harrison's rosewood Telecaster used on the recording of Let it Be, etc. Those instruments should demand a hefty premium because of the history and back story associated with them (assuming they have all the proper provenance).

That said, asking $65,000 for a rare bass played or previously owned by a little known professional on unknown if any recordings with a popularity of about zero is beyond stupid. This guy, no matter how nice of a person he is, isn't looking to sell this bass, he's listing it for attention and casually going about his other duties. If some fool with deep pockets stumbles by and buys it that's ok, but he's really not serious about selling it. And that's ok, it's his gear, he can do what he wants with it, but I certainly won't be paying any attention to his foolish ads, and in fact have made a mental note to avoid doing business with him until he has a deal to die for. As listed, it's an egregious and horribly bad deal for the buyer, in my book that's bad karma, and what goes around has a tendency to come around.

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

I am just not like other people. I really can't get my head around why something owned by someone who is/was famous is worth a premium over an example comparable in age and condition.

For many things I can construct an argument why someone wold value something differently from me (higher or lower) even if I do not subscribe to that valuation. But celebrity ownership does absolutely nothing and I can not come up with any reasonable explanation why value might differ. The only argument that could hold is the greater fool theory - that I could buy the item at an inflated price and sell to a greater fool at an even more inflated price. The problem with the greater fool theory is that sooner or later you encounter the greatest fool, and you might be seeing him/her in the mirror.

Can anyone explain to me why I might want to own a celebrity owned item and why I should pay a premium?

Totally agree with everyone.
The only thing it that makes it different from other basses of the type, vintage and condition it the fact that it is THE bass on those timeless recordings. Audiophiles will pay half a million for a brand new Rike Audio 50 Watt amplifier.
Clearly not as cool as being able to say look, that bass part what recorded on my bass when a Mountain song comes on the radio...although not widely known, Pappalardi has a huge cult following..

 

[PillO]

As someone who does have a number of celebrity owned instruments I'd largely agree with you. With good provenance one could see maybe a small premium for the "cool" factor. Much like owning a limited run instrument.

Where the real difference starts for me is "icon" instruments. Those instruments that are uniquely associated with a key player and have been used on a popular recording(s). Think Sir Paul's Hoffner used on the recording of Come Together, or George Harrison's rosewood Telecaster used on the recording of Let it Be, etc. Those instruments should demand a hefty premium because of the history and back story associated with them (assuming they have all the proper provenance).

I still don't get owning something like that. I think that instruments like those described belong in a museum. But I still don't get wanting to own it.

That said, asking $65,000 for a rare bass played or previously owned by a little known professional on unknown if any recordings with a popularity of about zero is beyond stupid. This guy, no matter how nice of a person he is, isn't looking to sell this bass, he's listing it for attention and casually going about his other duties. If some fool with deep pockets stumbles by and buys it that's ok, but he's really not serious about selling it. And that's ok, it's his gear, he can do what he wants with it, but I certainly won't be paying any attention to his foolish ads, and in fact have made a mental note to avoid doing business with him until he has a deal to die for. As listed, it's an egregious and horribly bad deal for the buyer, in my book that's bad karma, and what goes around has a tendency to come around.

My take is that somehow he is being pressured to sell but doesn't want to. So, he lists it at an unrealistic price miming an attempt to sell with no intent of every consummating a transaction.

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

I've seen through his ploy. He posts this ad, lets it ride awhile, donates it to a "Hard Rock" and takes a $65K write off.

I like how you think..

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

Herr Hornung, with a Ripper Prototype.

View attachment 3026432

Rippers rule.

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

I'm glad I was sitting when I read the price My NR looks Just like one Leon Wilkerson played. If I stenciled "LW' on what's left of the case do ya think I could get $50K.?

Leon Wilkeson

Love his playing but talk about the reaper being after you..he survived a plane crash and an assassination attempt and still died at 49..

 

[Gaolee]

Can anyone explain to me why I might want to own a celebrity owned item and why I should pay a premium?

Nope. Sorry. I can't do that because I don't understand either. Over the years, I have come to the realization that there are some things I'm not meant to understand at all.

 

[JJR58]

All i can say is that, this has been an interesting read so far. Hell, i don't even make 65K a year, let alone if i did have the dough, i could think of a better way to spend it.
Not knocking the person who would pay for it in anyway, just, the whole thing seems outrageous to me.

 

[theFixer]

Can anyone explain to me why I might want to own a celebrity owned item and why I should pay a premium?

There are many reasons. I'll use a Hendrix-owned guitar as an example. Some people would want it, simply because it would be "cool" (if you don't feel that way... I'm not sure it could be explained to you). Some people would want it strictly as a financial investment. Some may want it for sentimental reasons (i.e. their favorite song was written or recorded with it). As for me... the idea that Hendrix bled and sweated on it while honing his craft and writing his songs, is more than adequate reasoning. I also like to imagine the stories a piece like that could tell. Serious mojo factor! It's sad and wrong that so many pieces like that, wind up in the hands of non-musician investors, who can't even tap in to what it is that makes the piece special.

 

[theFixer]

It's all about fandom or the significance an item may have played in history and in this case, music history.

I'm not sure that a Felix Pappalardi or Mountain fan exists to the level of fandom that this seller needs.

Item's like this are worth whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay. There's only one good way to find out what that number is...

 

[Larry V]

Item's like this are worth whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay. There's only one good way to find out what that number is...

I understand why you and Scott earlier in the day and many others would believe this but I don't agree.

You may find some idiot to pay you an exorbitant amount for an item you're selling but that doesn't mean that that item now has that worth.

ex. If I get you to pay me $20,000 for a 1981 Chevette, does that mean that '81 Chevettes are now worth $20,000 or does it mean you're a dummy?

 

[TBird1958]

My ex-wife had one of those........Not Chevy's best moment

 

[theFixer]

As I think about this, I will even go a step further. I see no value in the artist signature instruments. I would not pay a premium for a "Geddy Lee" or "Jaco Pastorius" bass. The association does nothing for me.

Some may point out that I do own a Jack Casady bass. It isn't available as a non-signature model and I love the sound that I make with it. I actually don't care that it is made to JC's specs.

A signature model usually varies from the "standard" model. Body woods, neck profiles, electronics, finishes etc. IMO... you're buying a feature set... nothing more.

 

[JJR58]

Somewhat local to me, good basses don't have to cost a lot.

Original Pre-Owned 2012 Gibson Thunderbird Bass