state of the industry

[Wimblees@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 98-10-21 21:41:41 EDT, you write:

<< C. is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and would have meant nothing to a
 17th, 18th or 19th C. instrument builder (that was the substance of my
 previous tongue-in-cheek letter). An 18th Century French ravalement is a B.
 with considerable updating. Del's work is a B. Your old uprights are A. I
 would put myself in C (both restoration work and the hybrid of building
 such from scratch to match). 
 
 Comments?
 
 Stephen >>


Comment and question.

I think you and I agree on the A. The question is, how do we "run of the mill"
piano techs recgonize a B. C's are pretty rare in the midwest, although I have
run accross some of them. Not being familiar wiht the process of rebuilding
them, I inform my customers that it will take a lot of money to restore the
instrument, and it will be worth doing. In the cases of B's, like the Bush &
Gerts, I need to think about the resale value, as much as the eventual quality
of the instrument. 

Those who are in the rebuilding business need to know, and understand the
significance of some of these older pianos, especially the grands. It might be
helpful if techs would post the pianos they are rebuilding, giving name,
style, model and year of manufacturing, and get a consensus of opinion of
their value. 

But for the most part, most of my calls are for pianos that fall in the A
catogory, and that this the group I was addressing in my post. 

Wim