Why are vintage Kamaka ukuleles cheaper than newer ones?

[Snowbeast]

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?

 

[kerneltime]

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?

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.

 

[UkingViking]

I only have a vintage Kamaka.
I think that the improved tuners on new models have a lot to say.

 

[John Colter]

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.

 

[Snowbeast]

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.

I could be wrong but I heard the fakes were made in Japan and are actually quite rare, supposedly much rarer than actual Kamakas.

 

[John Colter]

I could be wrong but I heard the fakes were made in Japan and are actually quite rare, supposedly much rarer than actual Kamakas.

Wherever they were made and however few there are, the suspicion that they are out there may have an adverse effect on sales.

 

[Luke Plays Uke]

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.

From Kamaka’s website:

“

• From 1963 to 1970, to compete against unscrupulous ukulele manufacturers who tried to sell fake "Kamaka" ukuleles in Japan, Kamaka & Sons Enterprises collaborated with Tokyo Stringed Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to produce ukuleles for sale in Japan. Called "Keiki Kamaka," the ukuleles were made of mahogany, and were only available in the standard (soprano) size. "Keiki" means "child" in Hawaiian, a fitting name for the lowest-priced, beginner's model.”

 

[richntacoma]

Here is my take. I have had two very new HF-1 sopranos, and currently have a 1970s/1980s White label. I would say that objectively, the newer ones are better made, better instruments. They sounds far sweeter, fuller, and just are outstanding. That said, they were too sweet for me, and frankly, almost a bit too pretty in sound. I don't know, clear excellence, but not for me (or so I thought at the time). The white label, which I currently have for sale, is a bit cruder, but, there is something about the snappy sound that just says "ukulele " in a pure way that the newer ones just don't. The Koa is also prettier on this one--if someone does not buy it soon I am probably going to pull it, and would keep it if I did not impose a new 6 uke limit with two coming!

 

[UkingViking]

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.

 

[John Colter]

Ah! Yes! The law of supply and demand.

 

[merlin666]

Also keep in mind what the older instrument has cost new. So you need to add inflation to that. And then there is wear and tear of aging that diminishes value. Some may need repairs and things like tuners replaced which adds to the cost. For Martins the basic style 0 or 1 vintage ukes are almost as costly as a new Mexican one, but you need to do a lot of homework to increase chances that you get a gem.

 

[badhabits]

my theory, in addtion to all above- there was a time, during the low of ukulele popularity, when Kamaka was one of the only (if not the only) maker of Hawaiian ukes...so for that period there are a relative lot of them, and supply and demand kicks in. also the quality has improved since then.

 

[man0a]

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.

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.

 

[Oldscruggsfan]

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.

Economics, specifically Time Value of Money. What a concept, LOL.
Cheers!