<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> List Ok.. the recent two threads on advice about buying a piano has left me a big paffed about the seeming equality in how many techs range pianos in terms of quality, sound, and durability. I personally operate with 4 "classes" of pianos. I arrive at this from an admitedly somewhat subjective evaluation process, yet I strive to include as much objectivity as my humanity allows for. Evaluation of sound is of course  tough, at least above a certain level of quality. Things like tuning stability and action quality are much easier to observe, as is basic construction. How a piano holds up over time (both with and without proper sevice) is also something rather easy to observe over time. In that light I find that I would place three pianos without any further consideration in the top class. Both Steinways, and the Bosendorfer. I would be tempted to place Bechstein in this class as well, but something holds me back just a bit. The second class I place pianos like Bechstein, Yamaha, Bluther, Boston, Grotrian, Sauter, Schimmel, Seiler, Baldwins and a few others. Pretty much in that order as well. These are all good pianos, well made in most regards and will hold up well over time. But all lack something or another (some more then others) to allow me to put them in the same class as the three mentioned above. The Bechstein, Yamaha and Bluthner come closest tho.. especially the Bechstein. In the third class, which is where I personally draw the line for minimal quality that should be allowed, I place pianos like Samick, Young Chang, Petrof, August Forster, some of the cheaper Yamahas and Kawaiis (I see some CX5's over here) and  several others. Typical for all of these are that they have lots of assorted problems that irritate the patooties out of me. They all have their ways of cutting corners or choosing where to do shoddy work and they all have their strengths. Petrof is perhaps my favorite amoung these because of a rather pleasing general sound picture, and because of the fact that one can really accomplish alot by ripping apart the action and putting it back together. (Almost any competent tech can make a bit improvement on Petrofs by doing this) I dont like the bass strings on Petrofs, but those can be changed. Worse is all the false beats in the treble and the all to often lousey pinblock work found in these instruments. Samicks are also a piano I recomend often in this class. Pretty solid, really clean sound, nice scale and good bass strings. Pretty stable. In fact I would be tempted to place them lowest in class two had it not been for an observation about what happens to these over time. I find time and time again 12 - 15 year old Samicks that have just gone dead sound wise. I am not sure why this happens as it probably has to do with soundboard concerns that are outside my scope of knowledge. They just develop this "thuddy" quality over the whole piano. Not all of them mind you.. just enough of them that I cant get myself to range them better then class 3. Then there are the non piano pianos. Class 4 I do not recommend to anyone, advise against, and personally would like to see forbidden. These are pianos that come out of the factory with so many serious flaws that I cant for the life of me understand how anyone who knows anything about pianos can in good concious accept them as viable instruments in any sense of the word. These are pianos that come with really loose tuning pins, actions that are falling apart, soundboards that crack and pull away from ribs and rims before they get to the store, pinblocks that delaminate or have horrible workmanship with regard to installation, etc., etc., etc., ad absurdum. You know the lot and I wont mention any of them. These kinds of "pianos" are clearly substandard and represent pretty blatant fraud to my mind of thinking. I would be interested in hearing how other techs roughly classify pianos. I was, mildly said, supprised to see the assistant director of the PTG annual convention seemingly throw Steinways and Young Changs in the same "box" as being... "acceptable".     "All of the brands that have been mentioned are quite     reputable as are such names as Seiler, Schimmel, Baldwin, Young Chang, etc." I am reasonably sure he didnt mean to say the Young Chang is just as fine an instrument as Steinway, tho it could easily be misread to that affect. -- Richard Brekne Associate PTG, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway  </html>