Expected cost for a small bit of text

Pacing Mule

Hi guys

I'm looking to get a tattoo of my second childs name on the back of my left shoulder. It would only be 4 letters and not huge writing. What's the average rate for this these days ?

I have my first childs name done on the right shoulder - it was done 7 years ago somewhere in Temple Bar and although very happy with it (guy put on a littlle star at the end of her name which I was impressed with) I remember thinking it was relatively expensive for a very quick job. The tattoo itself only took a couple of minutes. Can't remember tbh how much it was. (They may have had a minimum charge ) I know that you can't waltz in and say hey you charge €100 per hour but this will only take 2 min so here's a tenner and that's being generous - there's equipment used, cleaning and prep etc to be done but what would be the expected and fair rate for something like this currently ?

Cheers

Angron

Most places charge based on the time it takes and not the amount of work that goes into the tattoo, and there is usually a minimum charge which varies from shop to shop. I can't really say what it'll cost you, that depends on the shop really. It's possible that you could work something out with a shop, but again that depends on the place.

P_1

Depending on the studio, minimum charges vary from 60-100 euro. Might be worth giving a few a call or email to see how much they'll do it for you

dodderangler

60-100 is ridiculous if the tattoo takes ten minutes
Lad that does mine would charge about 30 quid but it handy when you know someone but even if you didn't he'd still charge the same

niallam

dodderangler wrote: »

60-100 is ridiculous if the tattoo takes ten minutes
Lad that does mine would charge about 30 quid but it handy when you know someone but even if you didn't he'd still charge the same

Set up charge and all new needles etc is why there is a minimum charge.
Your as well getting something that will fill the whole hour as something that'll take 10 mins

Pacing Mule

That's the things lads - I understand the need for a minimum charge to cover off the setup and equipment used and have no issues paying for it. But all I want is the bit of text to mark the birth of my son which will take 5 min at most - probably quicker and I've no need for anything else. I'd feel a bit hard done by if the cost would be the same as someone getting something more complicated done that took a full hour.

Marty McFly

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

That's the things lads - I understand the need for a minimum charge to cover off the setup and equipment used and have no issues paying for it. But all I want is the bit of text to mark the birth of my son which will take 5 min at most - probably quicker and I've no need for anything else. I'd feel a bit hard done by if the cost would be the same as someone getting something more complicated done that took a full hour.

Your paying for the artists skill, knowledge and time along with supplies and set up time. You may say sure it will only take five minutes but you still want it done right, to look well and be done by a professional .

dodderangler

niallam wrote: »

Set up charge and all new needles etc is why there is a minimum charge.
Your as well getting something that will fill the whole hour as something that'll take 10 mins

No offence but i Dont see your point.
I can understand all that taking into account but its no need for it to cost 60-100 an hour if a tattoo takes ten minutes

Pacing Mule

Marty McFly wrote: »

Your paying for the artists skill, knowledge and time along with supplies and set up time. You may say sure it will only take five minutes but you still want it done right, to look well and be done by a professional .

No arguments here - As I said already I fully understand and expect the cost to reflect a lot more than the actual couple of minutes the tatoo will take.

I'm just trying to gauge the going rate as such. As a seperate thing I'd feel that if the going rate is the same for the 2 min tattoo of text and for 50 minutes of artwork (assuming base costs, setup and clean etc are same) that the person (me ! ) getting the 2 min job is being a bit hard done by.

P_1

dodderangler wrote: »

No offence but i Dont see your point.
I can understand all that taking into account but its no need for it to cost 60-100 an hour if a tattoo takes ten minutes

No matter how long a tattoo takes to do it needs fresh needles, ink etc for each different customer. That's why most places have a minimum charge tbh

Marty McFly

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

No arguments here - As I said already I fully understand and expect the cost to reflect a lot more than the actual couple of minutes the tatoo will take.

I'm just trying to gauge the going rate as such. As a seperate thing I'd feel that if the going rate is the same for the 2 min tattoo of text and for 50 minutes of artwork (assuming base costs, setup and clean etc are same) that the person (me ! ) getting the 2 min job is being a bit hard done by.

I do get what your saying but thats life for example its the same way nearly all electricians have a minimum call out charge they could be there for half an hour or two minutes they have a minimum charge, same as plumbers, GP's etc. If you want a professional to do it you pay the price really. On average in Dublin minimum charge is 60 to 80 euro.

RhoDoDenDron

Two minutes isn't going to cost the same as an hour. If the minimum is 60 and the hourly rate is 100, you're getting it cheaper. It's more like the person who only takes up 10 minutes of the artist's time pays the same as the person who takes up 30 minutes. What's 20 minutes anyway? It's pretty meaningless. You pay for the machines and the setup and the piece of mind that your work is performed to the highest standard possible. Consider that 50 quid straight off the bat. The extra tenner that brings it up to the minimum is the actual time taken.

All a matter of perspective!

So to answer the OP, the minimum minimum (no pun intended) is about 60 an hour, but if you asked really nicely someone might throw a few quid off, but certainly don't walk in expecting anything. It's their job and they can charge what they want. 60 is a very competitive minimum price at the moment.

Pacing Mule

I actually think €60 is quite reasonable tbh. The first one done was well over €100 as far as I can remember. It was the 7 years ago and the belt wasn't as tight back then either

dodderangler

P_1 wrote: »

No matter how long a tattoo takes to do it needs fresh needles, ink etc for each different customer. That's why most places have a minimum charge tbh

Your still not gettin my point
As I said I understand minimum charge but why is minimum charge so expensive 60-100 minimum charge is way too Much

P_1

dodderangler wrote: »

Your still not gettin my point
As I said I understand minimum charge but why is minimum charge so expensive 60-100 minimum charge is way too Much

Its the price that the market established tbh, same reason why a pint of milk will cost the same (more or less) wherever you buy it.

empacher

OP, if you want to get your moneys worth get your first Tattoo touched up while your there, normally they need a going over after that amount of time. It shouldnt cost extra. you'll get it for the same price

Star Lord

dodderangler wrote: »

Your still not gettin my point
As I said I understand minimum charge but why is minimum charge so expensive 60-100 minimum charge is way too Much

Try to consider everything that will be done during the tattoo process:
The tattooist will need to draw up the stencil/template for the tattoo to your specification.
They will need to set up their station and the equipment, needles, inks etc...
They will do the tattoo.
They need to clean down the station.
They need to sanitarily dispose of needles and bloody tissue waste materials.
They need to sterilise the equipment.

All the above has to be carried out by the tattooist regardless of how long it takes.
And like anything else, the more you're getting, the more the price drops.

murfinho

empacher wrote: »

OP, if you want to get your moneys worth get your first Tattoo touched up while your there, normally they need a going over after that amount of time. It shouldnt cost extra. you'll get it for the same price

Was going to suggest that too, but you beat me to it! :P

Would add a bit of extra value for money and take the sting out of it a wee bit (lot of puns going on here today)

bodice ripper

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

I'd feel a bit hard done by if the cost would be the same as someone getting something more complicated done that took a full hour.

if it weren't for the minimum charge, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone decent to tattoo a little bit of text - I would not be worth their while to give up time that could be spent with clients getting bigger tattoos.

niallam

dodderangler wrote: »

No offence but i Dont see your point.
I can understand all that taking into account but its no need for it to cost 60-100 an hour if a tattoo takes ten minutes

From start to finish your 10 minute tattoo is taking an hour of the artists time from drawing to setup to tattooing and finishing up and cleaning everything down again. Ink, needles, paper towels, cling film and probably looking at overheads of €10 per hour based on a 40 hour week
It's not just a case of walking in with it drawn on yourself already and them stopping tattooing someone else and putting you in the same seat with the same needle. Maybe what you'd get for 30 quid but not in any reputable studio.

bodice ripper

OP, how much did you spend on your last haircut?

Pacing Mule

bodice ripper wrote: »

OP, how much did you spend on your last haircut?

My last paid haircut was about 7 years ago but I see where you're going

To be fair to myself though I only asked a question about the going rate as I'm trying to get a budget / funds together. The discussion thereafter wasn't really my intention to start.

bodice ripper

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

My last paid haircut was about 7 years ago but I see where you're going

To be fair to myself though I only asked a question about the going rate as I'm trying to get a budget / funds together. The discussion thereafter wasn't really my intention to start.

I don't mean to jump on you. I just don't understand what kind of money people think tattoo artists make. The reality is that the minimum charge is as it is because that is what it costs to provide the service. A tattoo parlor does not have a revolving door of custom, and even a small tattoo is easily an hour of the day most of the time.

If say two letter were to cost 20 quid, the artist gets 10 for half an hour, less disposables. You'd never get a tattoo artist to see you for a small piece, as it would be in their interest to keep the chair free for larger pieces.

Karen23

Tattoo shop in Phibsborough charges €50 an hour , minimum charge of €40.

bodice ripper

Best value for money, honestly?

Blow 120 euro. Visit (not just online) at least two parlours and look at portfolios. Where ever you liked best, make an appointment, get something drawn custom. Listen to artist's suggestions. Consider shading/design work to accompany lettering, don't pick the first font you see.

Easily the best value in tattooing. Especially in terms of artist work to cost ratio

Esoteric_

Karen23 wrote: »

Tattoo shop in Phibsborough charges €50 an hour , minimum charge of €40.

Pinz n Needles?

Strongly recommend against going there.

I got tattooed in their other branch on Talbot Street (which appears to have shut down after only around 6 months). Looked great fresh, is now (4 and a half months on) extremely faded and in need of a serious touch up. Even when I was in there, the two artists I was talking to (Deb and I can't remember the other bloke's name) were slating the branch in Phibsboro.

Considering it was a second branch which was supposedly even better, based on my experience there I would never recommend it. I'm going to have to pay to get mine touched up somewhere else, if I can find an artist willing to work on somebody else's work.

Karen23

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Pinz n Needles?

Strongly recommend against going there.

I got tattooed in their other branch on Talbot Street (which appears to have shut down after only around 6 months). Looked great fresh, is now (4 and a half months on) extremely faded and in need of a serious touch up. Even when I was in there, the two artists I was talking to (Deb and I can't remember the other bloke's name) were slating the branch in Phibsboro.

Considering it was a second branch which was supposedly even better, based on my experience there I would never recommend it. I'm going to have to pay to get mine touched up somewhere else, if I can find an artist willing to work on somebody else's work.

I can't comment on the Talbot St. shop because I've never been but I know a lot people who've been tattooed in the Phibsborough shop and been very pleased with the results and have gone back for second and third tattoos. Maybe the artists in the Phibsborough shop are more professional.

Esoteric_

Karen23 wrote: »

I can't comment on the Talbot St. shop because I've never been but I know a lot people who've been tattooed in the Phibsborough shop and been very pleased with the results and have gone back for second and third tattoos. Maybe the artists in the Phibsborough shop are more professional.

From what comes out of their Facebook page, they don't seem hugely professional. They openly admitted to me (when I asked) that for some piercings, they use a gun.

Karen23

Esoteric_ wrote: »

From what comes out of their Facebook page, they don't seem hugely professional. They openly admitted to me (when I asked) that for some piercings, they use a gun.

Again , I can't comment on piercings as I only have my ears done but would some piercings not be done with a gun ?

They seem to have a new piercer from looking at their facebook page who seems very qualified and I haven't seen any complaints.

Esoteric_

Karen23 wrote: »

Again , I can't comment on piercings as I only have my ears done but would some piercings not be done with a gun ?

They seem to have a new piercer from looking at their facebook page who seems very qualified and I haven't seen any complaints.

No, no piercings should be done with a gun.

Yeah, Charlie seems decent from what I've seen, but no experience with him so can't comment. Pics of the piercings he's done seem okay, though.

Karen23

Esoteric_ wrote: »

No, no piercings should be done with a gun.

Yeah, Charlie seems decent from what I've seen, but no experience with him so can't comment. Pics of the piercings he's done seem okay, though.

:eek: Strange , for absolutely no reason I presumed Charlie was a girl

RhoDoDenDron

Karen23 wrote: »

Again , I can't comment on piercings as I only have my ears done but would some piercings not be done with a gun ?

They seem to have a new piercer from looking at their facebook page who seems very qualified and I haven't seen any complaints.

Will second what Esoteric_ said. No piercings should be done with a gun. Even lobe piercings are borderline with a gun, and there's simply no need to.

I don't care about the quality of his work, but if they use guns in that shop for anything then it's a serious red flag about the level of knowledge people in that studio have. Even a tattoo artist should know that piercing guns are bad.

Esoteric_

I don't even have a single piercing and I know guns are bad. :pac:

Karen23

RhoDoDenDron wrote: »

Even lobe piercings are borderline with a gun, and there's simply no need to..

I've never seen ear lobe piercings done with anything other than a gun

Esoteric_

Karen23 wrote: »

I've never seen ear lobe piercings done with anything other than a gun

Where have you been going that you've only seen them done with guns?

Guns can destroy the tissue in the body part being pierced. Mine were pierced with a gun (back when I was a kid, that was the norm) and they've got so much scar tissue that three places have turned me away since I hit adulthood, saying that they couldn't re-pierce them. I'm sure I'll find a studio that will, but yeah, guns are bad.

RhoDoDenDron

Karen23 wrote: »

I've never seen ear lobe piercings done with anything other than a gun

Then you've not been in professional studios.

Piercing guns can't be sterilised properly, and they work by shoving a blunt object through your ear at force, which creates extra trauma. Moreover, placement is limited by the physical shape of the gun, so you can't hit the ideal spots on lobes.

Needles are single-use, come sterile and are discarded. They pierce causing the least amount of trauma and can be manoeuvred any way the piercer or piercee likes.

The difference? One can be operated by an assistant at Claire's, whereas one takes a proper apprenticeship to wield. It comes down to cost and education, ultimately. Any establishment that uses guns is not a professional piercing studio.

Angron

Also, from what I remember the guns are considerably less sanitary than needles, which have been the norm for where I've gone.

edit: yup, Rho got it

SparkySpitfire

Nine Lives in Bray has a €40 minimum charge. I got a simba tattoo in colour a few months ago and it cost me €45

Karen23

I have 4 in each ear , all done with guns. My daughter had hers done in a salon with a gun and I've regularly seen girls in Claire's getting them done with a gun so I'd never have thought they were bad.

Obviously I'd have known most other piercings can't be done this way but ear lobes I'd have presumed were fine.

Esoteric_

Claire's is not a good place to go for piercings.


Any salon doing them with guns isn't a very professional salon.

It's like getting a piercing done in George's Street Arcade. Sure you'll get it done, but you're going to a bad place to get it done, and leave yourself open for loads of problems.

RhoDoDenDron

Karen23 wrote: »

I have 4 in each ear , all done with guns. My daughter had hers done in a salon with a gun and I've regularly seen girls in Claire's getting them done with a gun so I'd never have thought they were bad.

Obviously I'd have known most other piercings can't be done this way but ear lobes I'd have presumed were fine.

They're borderline, to be completely honest. They have a much higher risk of screwing up. Not high enough that they're illegal, but a lot of places are starting to ban them now (several states in the US, for example).

You're not guaranteed a bad piercing, but it won't be as good as a needle, and high-end studios just won't want to pierce you using inferior techniques.

Angron

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Claire's is not a good place to go for piercings.


Any salon doing them with guns isn't a very professional salon.

It's like getting a piercing done in George's Street Arcade. Sure you'll get it done, but you're going to a bad place to get it done, and leave yourself open for loads of problems.

Shh, we do not speak of that place :pac:

P_1

I find needles are much better to pierce with than guns (having been pierced with both).

There's much more pain thanks to the force of the impact from the gun, remember good old F=MA.

Princess Peach

Once you switch from guns in jewelers to needles in good studios you realise how bad guns are!

Whenever I got pierced with a gun it would be sore and tender for hours after, because of the blunt force. Needle only pinches for that few seconds it goes through.

All of my gun piercings have gotten infected or irritated. I put this down a little to the bad piercing method but more than likely its down to the cheap, unsuitable jewellery they use and the terrible aftercare recommendations. They always sold me some harsh chemical solution to clean it with that did more bad than good. Now I won't let anything but a mild sea salt solution near a piercing.

Another thing to remember is the training people get for guns. My friend worked in Claire's. Was shown how the gun was worked, used it on a co-worker under supervision and was then let off to pierce any age of person that came into the shop. Makes me vomit when I see the sign in the window saying "The Piercing Experts"

Esoteric_

All of my ear piercings (had my lobes done 5 times and the cartilage done twice) were done with guns when I was young and all of them also got infected. :pac:

TheBellJar

I had my 6 lobe piercings done as a kid with a gun and they still get red/sore if I have earrings in for more than a day. I don’t have any space for more piercings there either as they spaced them so far apart.

Also had 2 cartilage piercings done and redone with a gun when I was younger and it got infected every time. In contrast, I had a daith piercing done with a needle a few years ago and have never had any bother with it.

Princess Peach

TheBellJar wrote: »

I had my 6 lobe piercings done as a kid with a gun and they still get red/sore if I have earrings in for more than a day. I don’t have any space for more piercings there either as they spaced them so far apart.

Also had 2 cartilage piercings done and redone with a gun when I was younger and it got infected every time. In contrast, I had a daith piercing done with a needle a few years ago and have never had any bother with it.

Mine too! They get kinda gunky. Although I put that down to the fact that I wear cheap earrings.

I'd rather have my hundred pair of cheap ones than a few nice pairs of good quality though :pac:

TheBellJar

Princess Peach wrote: »

Mine too! They get kinda gunky. Although I put that down to the fact that I wear cheap earrings.

I'd rather have my hundred pair of cheap ones than a few nice pairs of good quality though :pac:

These were well worth the sacrifice :cool: