improvements

[Kdivad@AOL.COM]

In a message dated Mon, 6 May 2002  4:47:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, K divad writes:

>In a message dated Mon, 6 May 2002 12:43:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, John Musselwhite <john@musselwhite.com> writes:
>
>>At 10:52 PM 04/05/02 -0400, David wrote:
>>
>>>John, I'm sure you have seen the fit and finish of new Steinways, I'm not 
>>>sure how you can say they have retained the same quality and integrity.
>>
>>The same quality and integrity as *when*? Ever seen any from the late 
>>1960s? The new pianos are outright gems compared to some of those.
>
>Compared to most Steinways ever built.  Compared to what you and I and the consumer has come to expect.  Compared to their ads and hype.  Compared to their mystique. (Gee I like that word) Why compare with some of the worst Steinways built and because the new ones are questionably better say thats OK?
>
>
>>>I wish they would take the money spent on R&D for their fancy art cases 
>>>and use it to raise quality, consistancy and technical developement.
>>
>>What... and buck tradition?
>
>Oh yes tradition, tradition for traditions sake. Your right, about that point.
>
>
>>>Steinway is not the same as most other companies and relies 
>>>unproportionatly on its mostly deserved reputation, a reputation that has 
>>>an abnormaly high factor in its percieved worth.  A reputation that I 
>>>believe we all recognize has a great deal to do with mystique.
>>
>>Quite a few books have been written on the subject and they're all worth 
>>reading if you have anything at all to do with Steinways.
>
>
>I have read quite a bit on the subject and find it fascinating.
>
>Having restored Steinways for over twenty years and have been involved with  approximately 75+ Steinway restorations per year for the last five years  I believe I have a good vantage point on the quality of various era Steinways. Don't get me wrong, I love Steinways they are my bread and butter. I am fearful of the direction they have taken and hope it doesn't hurt them in the long run.
>
>
>>>I hope taking on other lesser lines doesn't de-mystify the consumers 
>>>confidence in the Steinway piano
>>
>>It hasn't hurt Gibson or Martin.
>
>
>Apples and oranges, a better fit might be Mercedes.
>
>
>>>that is slipping in consistancy, technical developement and in my humble 
>>>opinion quality.
>
>
>>Well, everyone's entitled to their opinions. Mine is that throughout their 
>>history some of their pianos have been better than others and some not as 
>>good and most (other than in some eras) have been from quite acceptable to 
>>spectacular for what they are after a good technician gets their hands on 
>>them. According to people I've talked to who had worked in the factory as 
>>far back as the 1930s it has always been that way.
>>
>>         John
>
>It seems to me that our opinions are not that far apart, you admit to good and not so good Steinways.  So instead of fancy art cases and lesser line pianos why not fix what they have got.
>
>You and I and the consumer have come to expect "Steinway quality."  It seems odd to me that it takes a good technician just to make a brand new Steinway presentable, and a good touch up man to fix the fit and finish. 
>There is one more point I would like to bring up, consistancy in my book is one of the most important parameters for judging quality, new Steinways are lacking in consistancy from one piano to the next. This is a problem any technician who is involved in one way or another with purchases of new Steinways recognizes.
>
>David Koelzer
>DFW  
>