S&S "ruined" ??

[John Musselwhite]

At 11:29 AM 9/10/98 -0500, Richard wrote:

>	> I know cause the local official S&S service guy has told everyone who
...
>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

There are, however, authorized S&S *dealer* technicians. As for the
"libelous" statement, half of the piano isn't what the label says. While I
wouldn't agree that it's "ruined", it is no longer authentic and in a
sense, no longer a whole "Steinway" even if touted as such.

>	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? 

You mean like the new soundboard on the Cristofori piano at the Met.
Museum? Or the re-necked Strads? Does that mean modifying them is the
"right" thing to do? 

>`	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. 

But they ARE "value compromised" in the maker's eyes... as they should be.
They built and guaranteed a whole piano. If they didn't make half of it
then half of it is compromised. It doesn't matter how well it was done or
where the parts came from, they form a "significant alteration" of the
original manufacturer's intentions.

>Wouldn't the logical extension of this be, "not genuine unless
>factory rebuilt"   

I always push for a factory restoration on S&S pianos if they are current
NY production models. The piece of paper you get from them re-certifying
the instrument is worth much more than a receipt from an independent
rebuilder when it comes to resale, IMO. 
	
>	So are all of the Strads "ruined" ? 

>From an historian's POV, yes... all the modified/updated Strads are
"ruined" because they are no longer original.  Mind you, if they weren't
they probably couldn't be played either and it hasn't seemed to hurt their
value any. 

As an illustration of this "factory rebuild" thing, a while back I had two
Gibson L3 guitars from the 1920s in my collection. One was in pieces in a
box and the other was restored extremely well by a local luthier (the
guitar was a true gem!). The one in the box is at present worth roughly the
same as the restored one is worth. The one in pieces will eventually go
back to Gibson's custom shop for restoration even though the cost is nearly
the same as having it done locally, simply because that receipt with the
original maker's name on it will make it worthwhile for a collector.
Otherwise it's just another really nice guitar valued at about half of what
it should be worth.. 

Incidentally, I've seen used Steinways on the market for less than what
that Gibson in pieces would fetch right now. 

				John


John Musselwhite, RPT  
Calgary, Alberta Canada 
musselj@cadvision.com 
http://www.cadvision.com/musselj