We returned our daughter's
First Act violin today, and nobody is happy. I would like to give praise to
Fred Meyer though for accepting the return, with no receipt, and without the original packaging.
So, after turning in a violin, which our daughter loved, and which had no problems that we could see, particularly for a beginner instrument for an 11 year old, my wife took our daughter to the music store recommended by her school to get a replacement.
They came home with a
Scherl and Roth. (NOTE: This link is the closest I could find to her model, which was R300E3. I'm not sure what difference the 'H' makes).
This instrument is not very gently used. It has scratches and scuffs, and it looks like someone tried to scratch some wording in the back. It costs almost three times as much as the brand new, perfectly working one we turned in. Also, the rent-to-own agreement heavily disadvantages the renter (i.e.: us).
Now, I must ask myself: Is this violin worth three of the ones we took back? I seriously hesitate to answer in the affirmative. In fact, if we indeed continued in the rent-to-own contract, we would pay far more than the cost of three First Act violins. I'd rather buy a First Act, wear it out, buy another one, wear it out, and buy another one, and wear it out. However, we went this route at the urging of our daughter's orchestra conductor.
I flat out am not going to pay well over half a thousand bucks for a violin that has graffiti scratched on it. We already paid for 3 months rental, and I fully intend on getting something else before we have to pay a fourth.