Typically vintage instruments appreciate in price if they are either of historical value (first set of ukes ever made etc..) or they sound fantastic. Vintage Martin sopranos from 1920s always sound fantastic. The ones from 50s 60s are not so much and the prices reflect that. I believe vintage Kamakas though iconic are not prized for their sound as much. They might sound fine but the newer Kamakas can give them a run for their money, I understand. Would love to hear from some one who owns both. I own vintage martins and have played vintage and modern Kamakas.When looking at Kamaka ukuleles the vintage ones seem to be cheaper than the newer models. Why is this? Is there certain models or eras that are more valuable? Are they quite different depending on the year?
I could be wrong but I heard the fakes were made in Japan and are actually quite rare, supposedly much rarer than actual Kamakas.In a recent thread it was stated that there are some fake Kamaka ukes out there. In addition, some genuine Kamakas (allegedly) were not made in Hawaii but in Japan, which makes one wonder if these were made from real Hawaiian Koa or from a substitute such as Acacia.
These doubts about provenance might account for a depressed market for "vintage" Kamakas.
Wherever they were made and however few there are, the suspicion that they are out there may have an adverse effect on sales.I could be wrong but I heard the fakes were made in Japan and are actually quite rare, supposedly much rarer than actual Kamakas.
From Kamaka’s website:In a recent thread it was stated that there are some fake Kamaka ukes out there. In addition, some genuine Kamakas (allegedly) were not made in Hawaii but in Japan, which makes one wonder if these were made from real Hawaiian Koa or from a substitute such as Acacia.
These doubts about provenance might account for a depressed market for "vintage" Kamakas.
Value is relative. My mom bought a new Kamaka soprano from the factory around 1970 maybe for $50 (retail price at that time). Even though there is visible wear and tear from 50 years of use, she could probably sell it for $500 now. Yes, that is cheaper than the new models that cost $1000 and up, but that isn't the same as "losing value". Are the new models worth more? They do appear to be more carefully built, have higher quality hardware (tuners etc), and are more nicely finished.All this analysis of why an old ukulele is cheaper than a new one, seems to miss the most obvious:
Most items loose value over time. If there are enough vintage Kamakas around, and not that many who "collect" them, they will simply be priced as second hand items rather than antiquitues.
Economics, specifically Time Value of Money. What a concept, LOL.Value is relative. My mom bought a new Kamaka soprano from the factory around 1970 maybe for $50 (retail price at that time). Even though there is visible wear and tear from 50 years of use, she could probably sell it for $500 now. Yes, that is cheaper than the new models that cost $1000 and up, but that isn't the same as "losing value". Are the new models worth more? They do appear to be more carefully built, have higher quality hardware (tuners etc), and are more nicely finished.