There was an article in the Journal a couple of years ago that took the most extreme possible position on this issue. Sometime later a more balanced view was presented and the first article somewhat refuted. If you go to case law, does anyone know of a person who has been successfully sued for "modifying" or "improving" a Steinway? Has Ford ever sued someone for customizing, souping up, and personalizing their Ford? I have a "B" for sale now that has all Renner action parts, a non-Steinway sounding board and I'm not concerned about a lawsuit. I have made a list of everything that is in the piano that I will pass on to the buyer so that there will be no doubt as to what is actually in the instrument. To me, rebuilding a piano and not making it the best it can be is foolish. Not only that, there were some parts that I needed that Steinway didn't sell -- i.e. it had 0.162" balance rail pins. Steinway doesn't supply them so I got them from Pianotek. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 11/18/2002 at 10:22 AM Ron Nossaman wrote: >>What obligation do we have as technicians in such situations? >> >>David Love > >Some more thoughts. If this is really a concern, there's always the option >of reproducing what was originally there, within reason. I would at least >suggest a new string scale and crowned rib set , re-calibrated as >necessary, with soundboard replacement. It won't make the piano look >different to most folks, but will minimize some of the inherent problems. > >The other side of this is that the rebuilder's good work and fine >performance result will be credited to Steinway if it sounds good, and to >him if it doesn't. > >Ron N > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC