<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Steinway parts vs. Renner argument</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"> See the article "Replacing Steinway Parts" by Robert Cloutier in = the January 2000 issue of Piano and Keyboard Magazine. This ar= ticle is written to explain the history of Steinway action parts over the la= st 40 years. It is a well written, coherent article, written to be understoo= d by the pianist.  It makes it clear that if the piano is to play optim= ally, we must use the parts that work optimally. Ed Sutton ---------- From: "Lorlin D. Barber" <ldb@commonlink.com> To: "caut@ptg.org" <caut@ptg.org> Subject: Steinway parts vs. Renner argument Date: Thu, Sep 21, 2000, 7:01 PM <BLOCKQUOTE>After five years of successfully rebuilding S&S actions wit= h Renner action parts and Renner and Abel hammers, the new departmental dict= um is "nothing but Steinway parts in the Steinways". I've been informed that a Steinway action part is subcontracted out to the = lowest bidder (which may even be Renner).  If this is true it debunks t= he idea that what comes from Steinway is made by Steinway. Does anyone know of any printed articles that defend the use of Renner acti= on parts over Steinway that may help sway such an opinion? Many thanks! Lorlin Barber -- Barbers Piano Service, Inc. Phone No. 515-274-5940 Website: http://www.barberspiano.com <B= R>   </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>