Rebuilding Value

[Barbara Richmond]

Hi Ed,

I think this thread was on CAUT.

Barbara Richmond

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <A440A at aol.com>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:42 PM
Subject: Rebuilding Value


> Greetings,
> In a private email, which I will snip and quote, anonomously, I read;
>
> << The dealer's argument might seem to imply that the school district
> doesn't warrant (or deserve) an instrument of that calibre.
> OTOH, I can see where the "company line" is coming from. >>
>
>      I think Steinway and Sons will tell any school that they warrant the
> best.  And, if they want to become a "Steinway School" and can't afford
> Steinways, then here we have the "Boston" pianos.....  There is some 
> trading on the
> name, there,  in my opinion.  It might be semantics, but them Bostons seem 
> like
> Kawais, to me.
>     IMHO, it is somewhat disingenuous for S&S to look at a worn out
> instrument, and make a case that it is better for the customer, and more 
> economical,
> to trade it in on a new one.  This is  possible only by slanting a lot of
> figures to go their way, and is specious, at best on two separate levels:
>   It runs counter to what could be sold as long term asset to those that 
> buy
> Steinways, i.e., their rebuildibility.  They have sufficent quality and
> reputation to make restoration not only a feasible course of action from 
> an
> investment standpoint, but also, a preferred course for the customer who 
> wants to
> keep their family heirloom.
>       If a family or school wants to continue using their piano, it 
> doesn't
> have to go to New York to still be a Steinway.  An aftermarket tech may
> actually get closer to what that piano was like when new than the factory. 
> How so?
> Steinways rebuilding department will not return an instrument that is just
> like that 1906 model O!  Heck, even their current production has large
> variations, and the makers have turned this bug into the "feature" of an 
> almost
> human-like, individualism possessed by their pianos. And if it is almost 
> human, it
> can almost "sing," (the highest compliment we normally hear given to any 
> musical
> instrument).  So, by logic, having it go back to the factory guarantees 
> only
> that it will not be like any other Steinway. However, it will be a lot 
> more
> like modern Steinways than pre-War Steinways.  Is this good?
>     If a school wants to keep a performance level piano for a long time, a
> Steinway is the most economical way to do it, and it needn't go back to 
> the
> factory to continue producing as designed.  I hate to see the public's 
> ignorance
> furthered by the maker saying that only its parts will keep that Steinway
> playing and sounding like a Steinway. ( I am thinking of a set of Tokiwa 
> parts
> with Renner hammers that I installed in the late 80's on a model B.  That 
> piano
> is regarded at the school as having the classic Steinway touch,  go 
> figure).
>
> Ed Foote RPT
> http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>