OPINION? At what point does an artist's instrument increase in value

Joined
Dec 4, 2015
Messages
165
Location
Barnegat, NJ
So I know typically we don't really talk about an instrument's value on here because there's many factors in the used market that affect that.

However, I'm more curious on everyone's opinion on this matter. Someone is selling a very beat up (it was used on several tours) PRS that was used by someone who was in a pretty high-profile band.

The price has been listed anywhere from $2000 to $13,000 on numerous sites and it still won't sell (I'm not surprised). It is pretty worn as stated, and still pricier than excellent condition instruments of the same model.


So I guess my overall question is, at what point would an artist used instrument actually increase it's value, regardless of condition? This guitarist isn't even currently in the band any more, and is definitely not a household name. I know roughly what the person selling it paid for it from the guitarist, and I think they're now trying to make a profit off of it, and I would imagine that it should just sell at the price-point that that model would normally sell at in that condition.

In my opinion, if I can't go "This is *insert name here*'s guitar" without getting confused looks from people, because they have no idea who I'm talking about, it isn't worth it, whereas if someone were to have say, a guitar played by Jimmy Page, Jimi Hendrix, Slash, etc., everyone knows who they are and I would expect their instruments to increase in value because of it.


I know this is slightly random... but thoughts?
 
Beats me, but the statement, "This is the guitar Clapton used on 'Sunshine Of Your Love," might have more market cachet than, "This guitar was once owned by some good player most folks never heard of."

Just a guess, of course, since I don't dream of owning either item.
 
I used to encounter this when I managed a Lamborghini dealership. People would have cars that were owned by famous people and they felt it increased their value and in some cases it did but rarely. The people who paid more were the people interested in the person and tended to be a follower of that celebrity and would overpay for a car based on ownership. Meaning that an Elvis fan will always pay more for a car owned by him and at that point the value of the car is no longer a factor in the actual cost to the buyer. They wanted a piece of Elvis and it happened to be a car.

The sad truth is that if the artist is still alive and not on the top of pop culture for a reasonable period of time the likely hood of the guitar ever appreciating beyond the details of the actual instrument is slim. I actually avoid celebrity owned cars for this very reason....you get less for your money!
 
I'm tryin' to think of what celebrity's guitar I'd want. Maybe Nile Rodger's clear guitar or his Strat but.. it'd be a passing novelty.
 
Value to whom...??? everybody has their weak spots...
I heard years ago about " a guy who knew a guy" that had a green CE-24 that was made for Alex Lifeson. (I loooove me some greens, and Rush)
If the cost was right...1200-1800-ish, depending on the guitar's components, (add more for a piezo system), and I'd go a little higher, especially if there was some evidence confirming the tie to A.L.
 
I don't think I'd bite in this market. I mean, I'm a huge Lifeson fan, but I don't know if I would pay over value to own one of his guitars. Well, maybe the double neck ;). If it were an investment only, perhaps, but I don't have a million bucks to plop down on Peter Green's, by way of Gary Moore's LP. I just don't think I'd want an artist's instrument. Not a ton of appeal, at least not for me. I do get why people THINK they should command a higher value. I don't necessarily agree with them though.
 
To me, it wouldn't have significant added monetary value. If any, it's more a sentimental value to the owner if it means something to them. Unless it's a historic instrument that's bound to end up in the HOF or Hard Rock...but there's very few of those guitars that are THAT significant in history and most of the time not realized til some years later.
 
I think I would overpay slightly for a couple of guitarists' guitars used on tour, but I don't know how much I would overpay. Depends on the specific guitar and artist and price. Is that too starstruck??? For the record, though, I don't watch ANY E Entertainment or the Kardashians.....

Kevin
 
I don't think I'd bite in this market. I mean, I'm a huge Lifeson fan, but I don't know if I would pay over value to own one of his guitars. Well, maybe the double neck ;). If it were an investment only, perhaps, but I don't have a million bucks to plop down on Peter Green's, by way of Gary Moore's LP. I just don't think I'd want an artist's instrument. Not a ton of appeal, at least not for me. I do get why people THINK they should command a higher value. I don't necessarily agree with them though.

I'm one of those nerds that would go above value...not much, but for the right axe with provenance ...yes.
 
I don't think there are very many guitarists that make a guitar worth more just because they had their hands on it for a little while - even 20 is probably a stretch.
 
If you're talking about market and resale value, anything goes. I'm sure there is a fan that will plunk down money for an instrument played by his favorite guitarist in just about every category of music.
As for its true value, that just means it's a guitar with some mileage on it, I find more value in an instrument that was barely used by some light handed beginner that took a stab at playing guitar for a couple weeks, then stored it away in a humidity stable area and offered it at an ungodly low price because they needed the money for an accordion and lessons.

Now that's what I call value.:D
 
I've never been the kind of fan that thinks a handkerchief from a star is worth more than a freshly laundered one in my pocket. There is just a mindset there, a hero worship thing, that I don't understand or buy into.

But I acknowledge that there are people who would pay more for that soiled hanky because they are smitten. I'd rather spend 10 minutes having David Gilmour critique my playing than owning a guitar he didn't want any more.

When the Eagles launched their "Farewell I" tour, they did some merchandising and hype through local radio stations in the cities on their tour list. The stations promoted the concerts by giving away pairs of tickets. And in each city, one package was pair of tickets 2nd row center and a guitar signed by Henley, Frey, Walsh and Schmidt. The guitar for the Baltimore concert hangs in my office. It's a 3/4 sized Takamine G Series acoustic. I've never played it.

The second row seats meant more to me than the guitar, though the guitar is a daily reminder if the experience.

With the passing of Glenn Frey last year, arguably the guitar increased in value. I have no idea what it is currently worth, and I really don't care. But our seats were right in front of Glenn Frey.... That makes it more valuable to me .
 
I probably would pay extra for something previously owned by someone like Les Paul. Not for investment value just the honour.
 
Last edited:
I probably would pay extra for something previously owned by someone like Les Paul. Not for investment value just the honour.
I did that. I was amazed how small the premium was after having been to the first Clapton auction (Brownie and Blackie were both sold at it). I find it a bit poetic to have a Les Paul Les Paul.
To balance it out, I also have a PRS PRS.
Something about Pauls and guitars.
 
Back
Top