S&S "ruined" ??

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

Hi Richard:

I sure like your comment below: "So, are all the strads ruined?"

Jim Coleman, Sr.

On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Richard Moody wrote:

> 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
> 	
> 
> 
> 
>