Steinway

[Tom Servinsky]

Terry,
For what it's worth, Steinway's own sales pitch includes a statement of fact
which says Steinways, on the average since they began production in the
1800's, have averaged an increase(in their retail price) of 7% per year. You
could do the math if a piano cost $1,000 in 1900, figured with the 7% annual
inflationary rate x 101 years, would roughly equal the amount say a Steinway
0 would sell for today. The used market always has maintained a parallel
ratio with that of the current retail price. That fact appears to follow the
numbers.
Is the term "investment" mis-leading...you betch ya!
I personally have a problem with the reckless use of "investment" in many
advertisements, including Steinway pianos.  It's a term, unfortunately, that
marketing has proven that connects with the customer, no matter how
miss-leading in actuality it is.
However in the case of Steinway, and this is where you have to give credit
where credit is due, they have the numbers to back up their statement...or
maybe its the way they present the facts.  At any rate, Steinway has
maintained an almost methodical image of strength,genius, and yes,
investment in the public's eye....all which ( in some way or another) could
be argued until the cows come home. That being said, Steinway was
instrumental in started the whole marketing hype of piano manufacturing
genius, and have been able to ride on their coat tails until this very day.
Overall, Steinway is a small company that has had a huge role in the musical
history of the world and the fact that their instruments still continue to
grow impressively in value is note-worthy.
I have scratched my balding head many of times while admiring the incredible
workmanship of a Mason & Hamlin A...and the tone. Ooooh! But yet, no matter
how well the instrument sounds and plays, it never will gain the public
respect in maintaining, or even keep up with the value of a Steinway.
Go figure!
Tom Servinsky,RPT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: Steinway


> Please explain some of this because I don't quite understand it.
>
> "According to Forbes, over the past ten years, the retail value of a
> Steinway concert grand has appreciated nearly 200%. An impressive record,
to
> be sure - but one that tells only part of the story. "
>
> So what does that mean? What does a D cost now, $90,000? Are they stating
> that a D cost $45,000 in 1991? I don't know what they cost in 1991 - I
> wasn't in this business. If that is the case, this tells nothing about
> investment potential. They are simply talking about inflation. Let's say
you
> bought a D new in 1991 for whatever they cost - I think likely more than
> $45,000 (my guess would be $60,000 or $70,000) - inflation has been real
low
> in the 90s. How much would it be worth now? $50,000? $60,000? Where the
he$$
> does the 200% appreciation fit in? You bet it only tells one part of the
> story!
>
> "The fact is, the appreciation of Steinway pianos is even more impressive
> when you look past the previous ten years - and take an historical look at
> appreciation over the past few decades. The numbers are nothing less than
> remarkable: Today, if the owner of a vintage Steinway grand decided to
gauge
> the value of his or her piano on the open market, it is likely that the
> piano would command a price 4.3 times higher than the original retail
cost."
>
> Please, I honestly don't know. What did a Steinway M, B, and/or D cost in
(a
> few decades back) 1960 or 1970? Automobiles have gone up approximately 5
> times since the mid 60s. Did a D cost $18,000 in 1966? Did a B cost about
> $13,000 at that time? How much is the average D or B worth today that was
> built in 1966 - and let's consider original condition only? I think we are
> looking at something pretty close to salvage value - maybe a little more
for
> someone who thinks pianos get better with age - like violins (ARRRGGG - I
> know, I know - but that is how the saying goes!!!). I don't think that the
> 1966 original condition D is now worth $77,400 (4.3 times the original
> purchase price of $18,000) and the 1966 original condition B is not worth
> $55,900 (4.3 times the original price of $13,000).
>
> Now, I'm just guessing at these prices, although I don't imagine they are
> way, way off. You get the point. I believe this is EXTREMELY deceptive
> advertising. What do you think?
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JIMRPT@AOL.COM>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Steinway
>
>
> > Wim we would accept this type of reasoning from a dealer but not from a
> CAUT!
> > :-)
> >
> > In a message dated 26/07/01 11:11:48 PM, Wimblees@AOL.COM writes:
> >
> > <<" This has been brought out before, by me. Three years ago a customer
> asked
> > me
> > to appraise a S&S S he had bought 10 years earlier for $20,000. He was
> told
> > the "investment" story by the *local dealer* and now wanted to cash in
his
> > investment, and make a bundle.">>
> >
> >  The operative words here are *local dealer*. Further you only have the
> > customers word for the 'supposed' dealer's wording of the "investment"
> > qualities of his S&S. What the customer wanted to hear and what the
dealer
> > actually said 'might' be vastly different things. This is not nearly
> enough
> > evidence to paint S&S as "unethical" in any sense of the word.'
> >
> >
> >  <<"He called the Steinway dealer and was told new
> > S's were selling for $35,000. He assumed that is what he could get for
his
> > piano. ">>
> > This is just plain stupidity on the customers part. Ethics certainly
does
> not
> > enter into this customer greed quotient.
> >
> > <<"He was astounded that I would not only not give him $35,000, but that
> > his piano was worth at most $20,000 if he tried to sell it himself,">>
> > This is further evidence of this customer's stupidity in expecting a
> dealer
> > to pay what a new piano would cost when that same new piano would be at
a
> > 'much lower' cost to that dealer on a wholesale basis.
> >
> > <<" and that
> > I would only give him $10,000">>
> > I have no problem with this at all.  But what would you have sold it
for?
> > Hmmmm?
> >
> > <<"I am sure there are other customers who have been "duped" the same
way.
> > This
> > is, in my opinion an unethical way of doing business.">>
> >  I am sure that buyers have been "duped" any number of ways by any
number
> of
> > dealers but this does not needfully mean that S&S is engaging in
> "unethical"
> > practices itself.
> >
> >  <<"And from what I see on
> > the list, many others agree.">>
> > Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...however wrong they might
be.
> :-)
> >
> >
> > <<" Look at the Steinway web site. There is nothing
> > wrong with what they say. But the way they say it leaves a lot to be
> desired.
> > Wim ">>
> > Perhaps it is your interpretation that is flawed Wim because I see
nothing
> > wrong with what they say....but you have to read what they say and not
> read
> > what you think they have said.
> >
> >  For instance they say "...vintage S&S grands sell for 4.3 times the
> original
> > retail cost..." well in a lot of cases that is exactly true...... would
> you
> > not buy a model 'O' for 5 or 6 thou? I would and the original retail
cost
> for
> > model 'O's was in the neighborhood of 1,100 and what would you sell that
> same
> > 'O' for after it was rebuilt? Hmmmm?
> >  and they say".....Treasured possesion that grows in value over the
course
> of
> > time.."
> > and this also is exactly true, at least for grands. The Emerson grand
that
> > sold for 490 dollars at the turn of the century most of us probably
would
> not
> > buy for more than 2/3 hundred if that, or at all. But how many of us
would
> > buy every model 'A' S&S that we could get our hands on for ten times(+)
> that
> > and the model 'A' sold for about 1,100, also at the turn of the century.
> >
> >  Further Wim the "investment" section on S&S web page leans heavily on
> work
> > done by Forbes Magazine, R.H. Bruskin & Associates Piano Market survey
and
> > along with work done by the Washington Post. Each of these sources is
> > foot-noted and identified. Without going to these sources and examining
> those
> > documents I don't think there can be any discussion of S&S perfidy.
There
> > certainly is none in what S&S themselves say.
> >
> >  Further Wim S&S says ".....look past the previous ten years and look at
> the
> > historical appreciation over the past few decades...."
> >   On this point Wim they are on absolutely rock solid ground. We as
> > technicians prove it every day when we give our estimates for rebuild,
> > insurance appraisals or offers to purchase.
> >
> >  I am definitely not a S&S coporate fan though I love 'some' of their
> > products, new and vintage.
> > In my opinion, calling their "investment" section "unethical" is playing
> > footloose with the term and on verrrry shaky ground.
> >
> >  If this is all the specific info on S&S and "unethical practices" I
think
> it
> > should cease..........but that is just my view.
> > Jim Bryant (FL)
> > "A greedy dealer and a greedy customer are each other's lawful prey"
> > Faintly Dull
> >
> >
>