stability of pitch raises (Ron's question)

[Farrell]

> I was looking for some
> sort of rational justification for the extra charge when it didn't seem,
by
> the users' reports, to involve substantially more work. A punitive charge
> for neglect is what it seems to render down to, which adequately answers
my
> question.

I have read quite a few explanations that are reasonable and do not describe
punitive charges. Is it possible that you already had your answer and you
were just trolling for someone to say what you wanted to hear?

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: stability of pitch raises (Ron's question)


> >    OK, Ron. I'll try this again.
> >
> > 1).   I habitually do two pass tunings, ( usually because the piano is
off
> >more than 3 or 4 cents from concert pitch.) But! I don't always find it
> >necessary to do so, nor do I charge extra for two passes on pianos on
which
> >the customer is really interested in maintaining.
> >
> >2). Yes, I use an ETD for almost all pitch raises, but I will do some
> >aurally, kind of as a test, just to keep my ears sharp. When the fancy
> >strikes me.
> >
> >3).On the other hand, I will not hesitate to charge extra for serious
> >neglect. Otherwise I am encouraging the future neglect of the instrument,
> >and doing extra work without compensation. After all, why should I charge
> >the same on an instrument which hasn't been tuned in ten years, as one I
see
> >regularly.
>
> That's more like what I was after with my question. With so many ETD users
> citing the effortless and supremely accurate pitch raise as a benefit for
> using an ETD, and at the same time saying they habitually did two pass
> tunings, while charging extra for pitch corrections, I was looking for
some
> sort of rational justification for the extra charge when it didn't seem,
by
> the users' reports, to involve substantially more work. A punitive charge
> for neglect is what it seems to render down to, which adequately answers
my
> question.
>
> Thanks for the response,
>
> Ron N