[CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

[reggaepass at aol.com]

I, too, think that Ron O. and his work are extremely impressive.  But whether or not someone is personally taken with his pianos, there is this: Just as it has been reasoned that it is counter-productive to make sport of bashing a prominent manufacturer, it is similarly detrimental for the industry to under value the heroic and very fruitful efforts of one of the few individuals who has dedicated his life to furthering the state of the art of piano design and manufacture.



Alan Eder


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu>
To: caut at ptg.org <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?








More like outstanding, remarkable. Ron Overs is incredibly brilliant and his 
innovations are a breath of fresh air. 

Jim Busby BYU

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:51 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery?

On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Ron Overs wrote:

> Fred and all,
>
> What you are recalling is the very first piano with our action from  
> 2000. The piano which came to Reno was a totally new piano, with a  
> rim which was specially pressed for us. While it was pressed in the  
> same rim press as the Samick 225, that's where the similarity ended.

Hi Ron,
    Thanks for setting me straight. Obviously my memory had managed to  
mix things together a bit, and I drew some f
alse conclusions from  
incomplete data. In any case, I'm glad I posted my erroneous ideas,  
since it led to getting the straight story from the horse's mouth.
    The Reno piano was admirable, the Rochester one better. Keep it up!
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu





 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090423/a07697ed/attachment-0001.html>