>Ron > >If you read my post, I said if the piano is in tune, and has been >maintained, then it is a good buy. I never said anything about buying a >piano sight unseen, much less inspected. Obviously if the grommets are >bad, the hammers are worn, and the keybed is warped, the piano has not >been maintained, and there is something drastically wrong with the piano. >Then the piano should not be bought. You're right, but the buyer won't know any of that without spending both time and money finding out. And that's the point. >By the same token, if someone wants to buy a Steinway L for only $2,000, >because that is all they can afford, is it a good buy, and are they >getting a bargain? (assuming the reason it is only $2000 is because >everything is shot, and the piano needs $20,000 worth of work). Of course >not. They would be better off buying a good used console. Considering that they could sell the Steinway and triple their money with a little time and cash spent on professional help, I sure don't see how buying the console would put them ahead, except in time spent and acquiring unnecessary education. >Not every piano has to be at concert level. There is a big need for entry >level pianos. We need to recognize that. We do recognize that. >We need to understand that some people can only afford $500 for a used piano. We do understand that, at least those of us who aren't independently wealthy. >So we need to be find a piano that is still functioning. We should also >know the difference between a "playable" piano, and a piano that is beyond >repair. In this economy, I think there are still pianos out there for $500 >that fits the "playable" condition definition. Maybe not for an advanced >player, but certainly for the entry level person. The operative word here is "we". Those of us who depend on what we do to eat are, I think, justifiably concerned with being paid for time spent on a customer's behalf. If "we" have to find this bargain for a customer, then someone pays for the time and knowledge required to do that. It's either them, or us. If it's them, then the price of the piano goes up. If it's us, then we're giving away our livelihood (which we do too much of already). When people phone me looking for a super cheap good used piano, I ask them a question. If I had a source of good cheap pianos, why wouldn't I buy them by the truckload and double the price to what the market indicates? Why would I pass a windfall along to a random caller when I could keep it for myself? I agree that entry level stuff is needed, but I don't intend to pay for it because they can't or won't. If they find a cheap piano they would like an opinion on, I'll be happy to go look at it for them for a service charge. I'll be happy to advise them for free over the phone if they want general information, because they're trying to learn what they need to know. >I think it is wrong for us, as a profession, to condemn a brand or style >of piano, because it doesn't meet our definition of what is a "playable" >piano. As it says in our code of ethics, we need to keep the best interest >of the client in mind. As long as the piano plays correctly, and can be >tuned, and stay there for a relatively long period of time, (no slipping >pins or cracked bridges), then it should be considered a "playable" instrument. I don't recall that being brought up as an issue. I've seen more than a few high end pianos that weren't playable by any reasonable assessment. I was answering the idea that someone would buy the first piano they found within a certain price range because they needed a piano NOW, and that's all the money they could spend. That's neither brand specific, nor unmindful of the customers' best interest. >End of rant. > >Wim Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC