[admin_hat=ON]No. There is no bottom line. People just want to think there is. This is basically an area where most of what is repeated over and over on the internet is completely irrational.
(Even though this Administrator is on 3 different class 5 narcotics, it's still probably unwise to call him "irrational". Or any of the other folks who disagree with your opinion. Name-calling isn't tolerated on this forum. Be nice.)
[/admin_hat]
You tap-danced around my questions: "Would you, personally, buy a relacquered horn if you couldn't playtest it?" and "If you know it's a relacquered horn, would you pay the same price as a non-relacquer in the same condition?" I'd like your answers. Don't equivocate: I'm not voting for you .
Where are MOST people going to buy a vintage horn? Online. That also means MOST people won't be able to playtest the horn. While I think that's it's nuts not to playtest a horn, a lot of people WILL go out and buy a shiny on eBay because it's shinier than the bare-brass Conn Transitional alto sitting for sale in their local music shop, even if the one in the shop is a better horn.
I also don't care about value, but someone else MIGHT. If you tell someone, "Hey, if you playtest it and it's a great horn, even if it is a relac, you should buy it!" you're missing the, "Expect to get 30% less (or even less) than a comparable original horn if you ever decide to turn around and sell it."
This is the first time I've ever heard that from anyone. The reason I wouldn't -- and I was under the assumption that most people wouldn't -- want a relacquer is because that if the horn is MECHANICALLY delacquered, you can strip metal and damage tone holes and that causes intonation and playability problems. Not to mention that it wipes out the engraving. I've said that more than once, so it's not like I've gone in a different direction all-of-the-sudden. And I've seen more than one person mention exactly that.There is this idea that you can feel safer about a horn that appears to be original finish, the underlying rationale (the truly reasonable rationale) being that you can see repairs better because are less likely to have been covered up by refinishing processes.
I think that it COULD be easier to see evidence of solder repairs on an original or stripped horn, but most really bad solder repairs I've seen are ... really bad and no amount of lacquer's gonna hide that. What other repairs could be covered up? Welding the bell back together? Hiding bullet holes (don't ask me how I know)? Bad dents inexpertly massaged out? True ... but that, I think makes the argument against getting a relacquer stronger, not weaker.
You're trying to tie "repair" into "relacquer" and those are two separate subjects. Yes, it's POSSIBLE that a relac has been repaired/overhauled/whatevered, but ... maybe it hasn't. I've seen a lot of "this horn was refinished 20+ years ago!" ads.
Additionally, relacquered also takes away from the ORIGINALITY of the instrument, especially when there's an abomination like a Conn-O-Sax qith lacquer body and nickel keywork. Ewww. Even Quinn wouldn't post the horn for $50K. (I seem to remember that particular horn selling for around $10K, which was the lowest price I've seen for a Conn-O-Sax.)