Quality in Pianos

[Allan L. Gilreath, RPT]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Richard,

First - I should apologize to the list for not signing my original post with
a signature other than my "Institute" tag line.  Any opinion that I state in
a message such as that one or this one is strictly my own and not that of
the Institute or the PTG.  (I wouldn't pretend to speak for an entire
oranization.)

Second - My point was not to categorize piano brands but rather that
categorizing by brand is extremely difficult to do.  Many brands have
varying quality in the line while each individual piano differs.  The
message I was trying to send is that the work done by the technician both on
the dealer floor and after the piano is in its new home is far more
important than any brand, reputation or opinion.  I certainly don't lump all
pianos into one category but merely wanted to point out that there are a lot
of pianos out there.  In my experience, I've seen both good and bad pianos
with the same name on the front.  Therefore, I would tend to reserve
judgement on a brand and prefer to see the individual instrument.

The other problem we encounter is that we tend to often base our opinions on
the instruments we've seen.  This might lead us to form an opinion based on
too small a sample to be representative or on isntruments that don't reflect
the current product from a company (for better or worse.)

Okay, there's my late night musing (after tuning way too many pianos today)
and I hope it's at least a little intelligible.

I know I certainly won't be recommending that Lester spinet that was on my
list to tune today. <grin>

Allan
Allan L. Gilreath, RPT
Gilreath Piano & Organ Co.
Calhoun, GA - USA
  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]On Behalf Of
Richard Brekne
  Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 4:50 AM
  To: PTG
  Subject: Quality in Pianos


  List
  Ok.. the recent two threads on advice about buying a piano has left me a
big paffed about the seeming equality in how many techs range pianos in
terms of quality, sound, and durability.

  I personally operate with 4 "classes" of pianos. I arrive at this from an
admitedly somewhat subjective evaluation process, yet I strive to include as
much objectivity as my humanity allows for. Evaluation of sound is of course
tough, at least above a certain level of quality. Things like tuning
stability and action quality are much easier to observe, as is basic
construction. How a piano holds up over time (both with and without proper
sevice) is also something rather easy to observe over time.

  In that light I find that I would place three pianos without any further
consideration in the top class. Both Steinways, and the Bosendorfer. I would
be tempted to place Bechstein in this class as well, but something holds me
back just a bit.

  The second class I place pianos like Bechstein, Yamaha, Bluther, Boston,
Grotrian, Sauter, Schimmel, Seiler, Baldwins and a few others. Pretty much
in that order as well. These are all good pianos, well made in most regards
and will hold up well over time. But all lack something or another (some
more then others) to allow me to put them in the same class as the three
mentioned above. The Bechstein, Yamaha and Bluthner come closest tho..
especially the Bechstein.

  In the third class, which is where I personally draw the line for minimal
quality that should be allowed, I place pianos like Samick, Young Chang,
Petrof, August Forster, some of the cheaper Yamahas and Kawaiis (I see some
CX5's over here) and  several others. Typical for all of these are that they
have lots of assorted problems that irritate the patooties out of me. They
all have their ways of cutting corners or choosing where to do shoddy work
and they all have their strengths. Petrof is perhaps my favorite amoung
these because of a rather pleasing general sound picture, and because of the
fact that one can really accomplish alot by ripping apart the action and
putting it back together. (Almost any competent tech can make a bit
improvement on Petrofs by doing this) I dont like the bass strings on
Petrofs, but those can be changed. Worse is all the false beats in the
treble and the all to often lousey pinblock work found in these instruments.
Samicks are also a piano I recomend often in this class. Pretty solid,
really clean sound, nice scale and good bass strings. Pretty stable. In fact
I would be tempted to place them lowest in class two had it not been for an
observation about what happens to these over time. I find time and time
again 12 - 15 year old Samicks that have just gone dead sound wise. I am not
sure why this happens as it probably has to do with soundboard concerns that
are outside my scope of knowledge. They just develop this "thuddy" quality
over the whole piano. Not all of them mind you.. just enough of them that I
cant get myself to range them better then class 3.

  Then there are the non piano pianos. Class 4 I do not recommend to anyone,
advise against, and personally would like to see forbidden. These are pianos
that come out of the factory with so many serious flaws that I cant for the
life of me understand how anyone who knows anything about pianos can in good
concious accept them as viable instruments in any sense of the word. These
are pianos that come with really loose tuning pins, actions that are falling
apart, soundboards that crack and pull away from ribs and rims before they
get to the store, pinblocks that delaminate or have horrible workmanship
with regard to installation, etc., etc., etc., ad absurdum. You know the lot
and I wont mention any of them. These kinds of "pianos" are clearly
substandard and represent pretty blatant fraud to my mind of thinking.

  I would be interested in hearing how other techs roughly classify pianos.
I was, mildly said, supprised to see the assistant director of the PTG
annual convention seemingly throw Steinways and Young Changs in the same
"box" as being... "acceptable".

      "All of the brands that have been mentioned are quite
      reputable as are such names as Seiler, Schimmel, Baldwin, Young Chang,
etc."

  I am reasonably sure he didnt mean to say the Young Chang is just as fine
an instrument as Steinway, tho it could easily be misread to that affect.

  --
  Richard Brekne
  Associate PTG, N.P.T.F.
  Bergen, Norway



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/f4/d3/0f/5f/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--