3 gorgeous 1890's Knabe uprights for sale, unrestored.

[Ron Nossaman]

>But I did get over it by the end of the post, and my wishes were sincere
>and collegial.

My mistake. It appeared to be sarcasm to me.


>Is "go fish" insulting or collegial, a spoof or a kiss-off?  I couldn't
>tell.

Basically, fold it four ways, and put it where the moon don't shine. But it 
has passed, and I'm over it now.


> >>---pianos made in 1890 by quality manufacturers were generally made
> >>better with better material than the same piano today.
> >
> >Maybe, or not, but so what?
>Uhhh....whatever you say. Or not.

That's pretty cheap, considering the consideration was and is whether or 
not pianos deteriorate under routine maintenance.


> >That's neither maintenance, nor lack thereof.
>Your point being?

What I said. What has that to do with maintenance?


> >If a piano is regularly serviced for a decade or so, and is played often,
> >it will still wear - funny or otherwise. Service won't keep strings in a
> >heavily used piano from work hardening and breaking. It won't keep
> >soundboards from negative crowning. It won't keep hammers, knuckles, and
> >key bushings from wearing out. It won't keep bridge pins from getting loose
> >and producing false beats, or cracking. It won't keep bearing positive in
> >the killer octave. It won't keep pinblocks from delaminating, or verdigris
> >from seizing up the action centers.
>
>Correct.  And if the piano is maintained and parts are replaced as
>needed, then its "deterioration" will be abated and, if parts replacement
>goes deep enough, reversed. An exact definition of deterioration seems to
>be the hot button here.

Does that mean then, that you consider restringing, wholesale replacement 
of action parts, bridge recapping, and soundboard replacement to be 
maintenance? Is that correct?


> >You will note that I never did talk to you about 1890 Knabe upright
> >comparisons.
>No, but you supported someone else's extolling of them, thereby giving
>your tacit approval of his position.

No, I didn't, unless I did so completely unaware of having done it. I said 
regular maintenance won't keep pianos from wearing out.


> > To find out what I did say, read what I wrote, that you
> >included as a reference in your reply, and I included again so you could
> >check what you replied to against what I wrote in the first place to search
> >for any remote connection between the two - should the urge belatedly come
> >upon you.
>How arch----and nearly unintelligible.
>I've read what you wrote, and what your writing replied to.  My post
>stands.

Then any further discussion will apparently serve no purpose, since 
expecting a meaningful reply is apparently arch, and what I write is 
unintelligible.


>I have no real bone to pick with you; I admire your knowledge, but I
>sometimes question your presentation. Praise and kindness can go a long
>way. Surprise us once in a while.

Again, my mistake. I assumed you were addressing a technical point, rather 
than grading the style in which what I wrote was presented. In the future, 
some indication of your intent would be helpful to me in figuring out what 
you mean, as opposed to what you say. Help me out here, once in a while.


> >Go fish, Mister Anderson.
>Spell my name right, punk.

Quite right, David A.

Ron N