<html> <body> Wim, There is another benefit I discovered.  Apparently Steinway has recently de-certified a school that had persistently failed to maintain adequate maintenance of their inventory as evidenced by the lack of service records and the evident condition of the pianos. Mentioned that to the local piano professor as he went up to bat at the budget table, voila, they can afford to tune their pianos all of the sudden.  ;-)  Much more to do, but it is progress. Andrew Anderson At 08:40 AM 3/31/2006, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In a message dated 3/31/2006 6:59:52 AM Central Standard Time, hoffsoco@luther.edu writes: <dl> <dd>I think we would have great latitude in the choice of instruments but <dd>>frankly the U118 has never been my favorite instrument either.  When I <dd>>think of the "All Steinway" designation the feeling I get is a confined, <dd>>cramped one.  I couldn't even fantasize about a Shigeru Kawai EX or some <dd>>piano that another manufacturer introduces next year because we'd be <dd>>contractually obligated to only the instruments of one manufacturer.  I <dd>>can't think of a reason to limit our options like that.  I might be a <dd>>little dull, but I can't figure out what we'd gain for giving away all <dd>>those options. <dd>> <dd>>dp <dd>> <dd>>David M. Porritt </dl>DAve   I think we should look at the designation of being an all Steinway school as being beneficial to the school, rather than for our own desires. As Robin pointed out, the perception the public has, especially serious music students and their parents, is that a school that has all Steinways, or at least all Steinway products, is a little better than a school that does not have that distinction. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many excellent music schools that have a variety of pianos. But I think the perception is there.   Wim </blockquote></body> </html>