---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment List, Dave Peake wrote: >A Steinway salesman told me once that for a Steinway to be rebuilt it has to >have genuine Steinway parts, genuine Steinway strings, Steinway pinblock and >genuine Steinway soundboard. Send it to Steinway to have a new board >installed. Anything less is no longer a Steinway. These people take themselves far too seriously? Contrary to what they would like us to believe, they are not gods but just another piano manufacturer, and just as capable of creating a monument or a monumental mess as the rest of us. Willem Blees wrote: >Several years ago a letter from a lawyer appeared in the Journal basically >telling technicians that rebuilding a Steinway is an infringement on patent >rights. The gist of the article tried to imply that only the Steinway Factory >is allowed to remanufacture Steinway pianos. Several months later another >lawyer wrote an article saying the first article is full of hog wash, and he >quoted a Supreme Court decision to prove the case. I recall reading the articles also Willem, and hog wash it was too. Back in 1993 Steinway had their lawyers issue me with a demand that I cease to rebuild Steinways with modifications or legal action would ensue. They falsely accused me of 'passing off'. Seeking advice on the matter, I was instructed that their claim was nothing more than an unsustainable threat, since we acknowledged modifications which were made on the instrument. As mentioned in my reply to Steinway at the time, the performance of the piano subsequent to its rebuild would not be a reflection on Steinway and Sons. Sometimes unfortunately, the manufacturer can be credited for the work of the rebuilder. For many years here at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Sydney, the pianos used for recordings and broadcasts have been credited to Steinway when in reality they are modified instruments. This has been a cause of some irritation to me since I feel that they should be credited as Overs modified Steinways (if we are to be completely truthful about the matter). Nonetheless, to date I haven't threatened to rip anybody's arms off over it. >At what point does a replacement of a part other than a Steinway part make >the piano NOT a Steinway? Who cares? (no offense intended here Willem) It isn't really anybody else's business provided that all modifications are acknowledged, and that they have the approval of the client. >Can we change a string, or a hammer, or remove a >punching under a key, and still have a "real" Steinway? Change whatever you like and acknowledge it. You wouldn't want Steinway to get the credit for your careful work would you? Ron N wrote: >Why is it that Steinway is the only piano that bloody counts? Its not Ron, its just a myth pedalled by the S&S 'spin doctoring' department. Ron O -- ______________________________ Website: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ______________________________ ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/0d/08/ff/f1/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC