Stephen Birkett wrote: > Del wrote: > > As to whether or not this is economically viable is a whole > > other issue..... > > > This is really a sub-case of the B. from my earlier A,B,C letter. viz > updating/rebuilding an extant piano of no particular historical value to > repair/modernize it - in this case the piano isn't in need of improvement > because of its age, rather because of its poor original design and/or > manufacture. > > Economics is the only issue here, just as it always was. It may or may not > be economically viable to correct the flaws, depending on how serious they > are and the skill of the rebuilder. The astute businessman will choose > patients wisely and repair them cleverly, thereby widening the profit > margin as much as possible. > > Stephen --------------------------------------------- You're being kind. It's design and manufacture were pretty much standard for its type and age. It was not an expensive piano to begin with. That was obvious in the fit and detailing of the various components. Had this had been an upright, we all would have said, 'junk it.' But the basics were there. Good maple rim. Acceptable plate layout. Good key layout. Etc. Doing this piano was simply an experiment in economics and a study in human nature. I was curious to see if we could systematize some of these processes and speed them up some. And, we all wanted to see what the reaction of both piano technicians and potential buyers would be to playing and hearing a piano without a 'name' brand decal on the fallboard that outperforms pianos with some very prestigious names up there. (We don't tell folks the name of the original manufacturer.) It's been interesting. Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC