S&S "ruined" ??

[Richard Moody]

Dale wrote....
	> I know cause the local official S&S service guy has told everyone who
> will listen that I ruined a couple at the local museum by putting those
> S&S style Renner replacements on their  A  and B". 




I thought someone would comment on this "official S&S service guy".  Even
if he is, his statements are libelous.  
	It is my understanding that there are no "official" or "authorized"
Steinway service persons except those on Steinway's payroll.  Something
about there are no "authorized" persons, even those "factory trained",
because S&S does not have control over what they do away from the factory.
I saw this somewhere, perhaps on their web site? 
	On the other hand, the museum should see through this flam.  What
historic instrument has not been altered in such a way that it is "ruined"
because the repairs, and parts were not authorized or "authentic" from the
maker? 
	I have an overwhelming suspicion any reputible maker would not be pleased
to see the potential re-sale value of their instruments threatened because
of malicious or un-informed gossip.  A main advantage of "buying the best"
is that it retains a greater resale value, NO MATTER WHAT!
`	Yes it is in the maker's interest to encourage, "genuine" parts, but not
to the point of declaring instruments "ruined" or "value compromised" even
because of the use of other
parts. Wouldn't the logical extension of this be, "not genuine unless
factory rebuilt"   
	
	So are all of the Strads "ruined" ? 

Richard Moody