Was Help pricing a Baldwin Acrosonic now :when is an Acro an Acro

[tom driscoll]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Spalding" <spalding48@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 8:55 AM
Subject: Help pricing a Baldwin Acrosonic


> List,
>
> My client wants to know what to offer the store on a used Acrosonic.  Also
> if there is anything in particular to beware of in Acro's of this vintage.
> I have not seen the piano yet.  I have advised her against spinets, but
she
> owns her mother's Acro, and now wants to buy a piano for her son's family.
>
> thanks
>
> Michael Spalding
> spalding48@earthlink.net
>
>
>To list,
    The "real" acrosonics have the easier to remove action-longer
keys-direct blow with the guide rail and pickup fingers.
    I service (as I'm sure we all do) more than I can count.
    They have their shortcomings ,but In my opinion are the best of the
spinets as far as tunability, servicability, and have reasonable tonal
production.
    The problem is that in the late 60's I believe, Baldwin scrapped that
design  and went to the keyfork-grommet- dropwire configuration , but still
called the piano an Acrosonic.
    Larry Fine has stated that Baldwins position was that the Acro trade
name descibed a cabinet design not an action design.
    My point is that  all Acros are not the same and in this case  in my
opinion older is usually better--condition of course the over riding
criteria.
    I use the corfam "infested" actions of the late 70's with petrified
grommets , horrible string spacing and bridge work- vs a 1950's -60's acro
with the aforementioned features and much higher workmanship as case in
point
    Tom Driscoll RPT