[pianotech] very old pianos

[Farrell]

Wim, Wim, Wim, please read my post. I don't feel the need to be quoted the PTG Code of Ethics. I said a piano where " the mechanics of the piano are in surprisingly good condition".

I just condemned three pianos last week alone......

Terry Farrell
  ----- Original Message ----- 

  There is a difference between doing $500 worth of work on a piano that is still in decent condition, (even if it's only worth $200,) and doing $500 worth of work on a piano that will still not be playable after the work is done. 

  This is what I say in my book; "As it states in the PTG Code of Ethics, we have to keep the best interest of the client in mind. In other words, we need to look at a piano for what it can do for the customer. We need to look beyond our supposed capabilities, thinking we can fix anything, and ask, “is this piano really worth fixing?” We need to be able to say to our customers, “this piano is dead,” regardless of what the customer thinks of the piano. The customer might not like what you said, but it is more ethical to tell the truth, than let the customer continue to believe the instrument is worth restoring."
   


  Willem (Wim) Blees, RPT

  -----Original Message-----
  "I never refuse to work on a piano unless the cost of repair is way beyond the worth of the instrument..."

  So if a customer has an old upright with a beat-up plain case but the mechanics of the piano are in surprisingly good condition, you'd refuse to do a pitch raise, tuning, and a basic regulation - easily $500 worth of work on a $200 piano - family heirloom and all that....?

  I'm not trying to pick your post apart Marc, but a lot of piano owners and newbie techs read this forum and I think sometimes they can take what appears in this forum a little too verbatim. I do agree that your statement has merit - just that there can be numerous exceptions.

  Terry Farrell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090129/c281fb02/attachment.html>