[CAUT] My take on them, (was The "new" S&S Hammers).

[Jeff Tanner]

On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:30 PM, David M. Porritt wrote:

> Jeff:
>
>
>
> Any manufacturer has their reputation on the line with the products  
> they produce.  If they want to keep them exactly as they built  
> them, they should just lease them rather than sell them.  When I  
> encounter a customer’s piano, I assume they bought it and they will  
> be the one to tell me how they want it voiced, regulated, etc.  How  
> the manufacturer wants it doesn’t enter my mind.  They no longer  
> own it.  Mrs. Customer does.
>
>
>
> dp
>
>
Dave,
With all due respect, I think you may misunderstand what Mrs.  
Customer believes she owns.  If it says Steinway on the fallboard,  
she expects it to be as authentically Steinway as possible - that it  
is not just a replica, but a clone of the instruments the artists  
play.  She also expects her technician to speak and understand  
Steinway.  Once it has lost any of that authenticity, she accepts  
that it is no longer what it once was.  Whether or not we want to  
admit it, if it is no longer authentic, it loses value in her mind.   
If a potential buyer were to learn that it is not authentic, it loses  
value in his mind as well.  There is indeed more at issue here than  
our own artistry and pride.

Yes, there is a large variance in what is possible with touch weight,  
response and tone.  But changing the hammers changes the complete  
character.  It will never be capable of that sound that is  
authentically Steinway (or Yamaha or whoever).  That is what it loses.

And I completely disagree with the assertion that the manufacturer no  
longer owns it.  They own every patent, every design and every  
process which has earned the reputation sought by buyers of the name  
on the fallboard.  That name on the fallboard is definitely their  
property.  It is the identity on which their future business is  
built.  If we profit by changing any part of the product wearing that  
name, well, some industries would consider that fraudulent.  Were you  
the purchaser of a prescription drug or a food that someone had  
altered after it was stamped ready for market you would quickly  
disagree with your philosophy.  If it is discovered that drugs are  
tampered with after they leave the manufacturer, it is that  
manufacturer that suffers the losses incurred, even if the  
perpetrator is caught and put in jail.  Let's say we own a small  
business which makes paint, but can't afford our own cans and labels  
to store it in, and so we collect empty paint cans with other  
manufacturer's names on the can - maybe we make interior paint and  
put it in an old Sherwin Williams exterior paint can and sell it as  
Sherwin Williams exterior paint.  We are misrepresenting the product  
in the can and taking advantage of the established name to profit.

The customer thinks he is buying Sherwin Williams exterior paint.

It is the same.


On Sep 19, 2007, at 8:23 PM, David Love wrote:
> Neither, btw, should you be concerned about manufacturer identity.   
> No matter what you do, you will not turn a Yamaha into a Steinway  
> or a Steinway into a Yamaha.

I'm sorry.  I completely disagree.  My experience is that Mrs.  
customer was quite concerned about manufacturer identity when she  
bought her piano.  One may not be able to turn a Yamaha into a  
Steinway or vice versa, but one can definitely turn it into something  
that is no longer represented by the name on the fallboard.  It  
becomes a rebuilt, generic instrument with a false identity.   
Something like me claiming to a business degree from Yale, when it is  
actually from the University of Georgia.  While UGA patterned itself  
very much after Yale, Yale it is not.

I'm just not comfortable wearing that hat.



Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070920/142660e4/attachment.html