[CAUT] Rebuilding Value

[Overs Pianos]

At 1:22 AM -0500 10/3/06, Chris Solliday wrote:

>   . . . The real issue here is does it change the value to have the 
>work done by
>someone who may do a better job with better parts (oh my God!) and produce a
>better piano than "Steinway" rebuilt or "Steinway" new. Is that possible? Of
>course it is. Maybe it improves the value. Is it possible in this case? I
>don't know and none of us can say because we don't know the particulars and
>the particulars are everything.

What really matters is that the institution does its homework and 
ensures that, should they choose the path of rebuilding, that the 
entity chosen is capable of undertaking the work to the required 
standard.

>  One thing bothers me though and that is that even when I give a rebuilding
>estimate I always advise the client that the best use of their money is to
>carefully select a new instrument if they can afford it.

I believe that will depend on the instrument which is being 
considered for rebuilding. If the instrument has a number of design 
issues which will make remanufacturing more expensive, then the new 
option might be sensible, but if the instrument is say a mid sized 
piano with a decent or nearly decent scale design and could be 
transformed into a first class instrument which would hold its own 
with a new instrument, then surely it would make good economic sense 
to remanufacture.

The S&S lobby will suggest that a rebuilt instrument, particularly 
one which was modified and/or rebuilt with non genuine parts, will 
have poorer resale value. However, whether it is true or not will be 
largely irrelevant, since the institution will in all probability 
keep and use the piano until it is reduced once again to a 
re-buildable shell.

>  That way Everything
>is new and under factory warranty.

Indeed, and if the rebuilder is a serious rebuilder, he/she will 
offer a long and meaningful warranty on the work also. So either way, 
provide the institution doesn't contract the corner sweatshop, it 
will very likely end up with a good result.

>Of course the selection process is
>crucial.

But on the other hand, if the options under consideration are a room 
full of new Os with their scaling and overloaded killer octave 
issues, from which to chose one, or the institution's model O shell 
remanufactured with the very latest design thinking of 2006, then the 
rebuild option may well be the better choice.

>   In most cases the price to rebuild an O with all the uprgrades
>including TouchDesign and other improvements is let's say for the sake of
>argument alittle under 30 grand, more for an ornate cabinet (we don't know).

It may well cost more than a new factory O to do a thorough 
remanufacture, and the rebuilder will have to convince the 
institution that his/her option is the one to go for. If the 
rebuilder is serious and established, he/she will have several 
previously satisfied clients who would be only too willing to have 
their instrument tried by the institution's representative/consultant.

>. . .  As President of PTG I would not take a stand. As an RPT member you have
>every right to supply justification. But for this organization to take on
>this company and their marketing practices and think anything other than
>destruction in the community will occur is folly.

Why? The company has a long history of taking on anybody in the trade 
who is not part of their tightly controlled group, yet our industry 
seems to struggle on regardless. I can't see that it would make any 
difference to the lay of the land if the targeted ones kicked back a 
bit. I think the time for exposing the company's 'marketing 
practices' is well and truly overdue.

>I don't see anyway to
stand up and holler and improve things in this situation.

I do, just insisting on the truth would be a start. The 'genuine 
parts' rhetoric and the 'authorised rebuilders' stuff is just scare 
tactics, to keep the faithful in line. The company does its best to 
discredit anyone who rebuilds one of their instruments in a modified 
form. I think we should all stand up for our place in the world. 
There is room for many and varied approaches to our craft, if we can 
just avoid the 'there's only room for one manufacturer' factor.

>  Other than pointing out that these processes can possibly involve 
>talented individuals
>who may produce excellent results for a reasonable price I don't see where
>you have a leg to stand on.

Well, that sounds like a pretty good leg to me. You certainly won't 
catch the company giving any space to such statements.

I believe we should always stand up and fight for things that we 
believe in, because for every endeavour we might pursue, there is 
always someone waiting in the wings who will try to knock us down. 
Three cheers for John Proctor.

>  If you must, suggest that this Board get a quote
>from "Steinway" on rebuilding at the factory or the Restoration Center in
>Paramus, wherever the cloak is this week.
>
>  I really think it is up to the tech to fight this battle and frankly I
>haven't had any problem so far and I work for this dealer on occasion. They
>make their pitch, we (techs) make our pitch and the marketplace decides

. . . under coercion from the company with their "it won't be a 
genuine Steinway line", and many other lines that are even stronger 
which won't ever make it into print.

>  If the PTG wants to get a group of rebuilders together in committee 
>and formulate a
>position statement on this subject that might be a way to go but I doubt the
>quorum will be present.

Your probably right Chris. It can be a lonely path making a living as 
a rebuilder, against the heavyweights who like to call all the shots.

Ron O.
-- 
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
    Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________

Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron at overspianos.com.au
_______________________