An untrue from Steinway was Re: Do Steinways appreciate?

[Wimblees@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 6/1/99 9:50:26 PM !!!First Boot!!!, tech@steinway.com 
writes:

<< List,
 
 I wanted to stay out of this one, but to imply that we are guilty of lies,
 hyperbole, or even an "untrue",  is going a little too far.
 
 Please refer to the following URL:
 http://www.steinway.com/html/showroom/invest.html for an accurate summary of
 Steinway's appreciation claims.  All of the statements on that page have
 appropriate citations.  We can not possibly control everything said on a
 sales floor, but we push appreciation value as a selling point because it is
 true and it can be documented.

The Web site states: "Over the past 10 years, the retail value of a Steinway 
concert grand has appreciated nearly 200%."

According the Ancot book, in 1990 a Steinway D had a retail value of $52,380. 
 In its 1999 edition, a Steinway D has a retail value of $78,300. First of 
all, that is not "nearly 200%"  What this statement says is the price of new 
Steinway is now 160% more than it was 10 year ago. The piano did not 
appreciate. The retail value did. The price of a 9' Samick grand also 
increase 160%. So this means that "over the past 10 years, the retail value 
of a 9' Samick concert grand also has appreciated nearly 200%". So, by the 
way, have all pianos, give or take a few percentage points. 

There seems to be a confusion between "appreciated value" and the increase 
costs. Just because the cost of a product goes up, doesn't mean the product 
itself has appreciated in value. I think it is very misleading for Steinway 
to make this statement. 
 
 Naturally the condition of the instrument will have a large impact on its
 re-sale value and no one around here ever claimed Steinways are a better
 investment than the stock market.  The point is simply this: you will do
 better with a Steinway than with other big-ticket consumer items.
 
The next part of the webb page states: "Today if the owner of a vintage 
Steinway grand decided to gauge the value of his or her piano on the open 
market, it is likely that the piano would command a price 4.3 times higher 
than the original retail cost."

Jim Coleman bought his piano for $3700 in 1952.  He says it now worth 
$12,000. 4.3 times $3700 is $15,910.  Although it might be worth that much, I 
know in St. Louis it will never sell for anything close to that.  But even if 
the piano is worth 4.3 times more than what he paid for it, aren't other 
pianos in similar condition, worth about the same amount higher.  I can buy a 
40 year old Baldwin Acrosonic for $300, which is about what they sold for in 
1959, and sell them for $1300. That is 4.3 times more.  And other pianos have 
a similar increase.  

Again, I think Steinway has done a great job of playing with words to make it 
sound like customers are going to be able to "make" money buying a Steinway 
grand. I want to stress again that I have nothing against the quality of 
Steinways. I think they are excellent instruments. But for the company to 
promote that a customer should buy a Steinway over another instrument as an 
investment that will appreciate in value more than any other instrument, is a 
gross misrepresentation of the truth. 



 Yours,
 STEINWAY & SONS
 
 Stephen K. Dove
 Supervisor, Retail Services >>


Willem Blees RPT
St. Louis