Sarah & all - First, I think we frequently loose sight of what this list is, and what it is not. Or maybe it's just me. While we tend to treat it as an exclusive technician / PTG site, it is, of course, neither. We tend to discuss matters related to the Guild, or business matters as if every business or profession conducted similar sorts of discourse, in a public forum. I doubt any others do. Perhaps some clarification needs to be proffered as to the liability for what is posted. Now that the list is hosted by the PTG, is there, in fact, some legal exposure for "complaint" type comments that identify specific parties? I tend to think that neither Thump's nor Sarah's approach is necessarily appropriate, or practical. Why should any of us, individually or as part of the PTG devote time and expense (including possibly legal) getting involved in warrantee surveys. The point of an open discussion on this list is its very informal nature. Why should any of us feel fearful of openly discussing our experiences? Nobody, or virtually nobody, has any interest in harming a company or individual. The pressure to do the right thing should be organic, either from the company itself, or in the uncertainty, and ultimately the uncontrollability, of bad press. If this issue gets resolved successfully, all parties should be commended. What remains is for us to press for a technically unequivocal statement of what constitutes acceptable design specifications and parameters. On this, I would have no problem seeking a manufacturer-wide compendium. Certainly, not another convention should go by without, once and for all, establishing some minimum structural standards and consistent terminology, whether for builders or rebuilders. We've spent years listening and learning the principals of construction. Now, it seems, they're not really rules, "they're more like guidelines" :X David Skolnik At 10:23 AM 7/10/2005 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Thump, > >I think you wouldn't be courting legal troubles if you include all the >manufacturers, or at least the major ones, in your service problems list. >If anyone is interested in doing this, the archives cna be mined for this >info. For each new thread that introduces a new service problem on a new >or newish piano (e.g. no older than 5 years), record what the service >problem was and on what piano. Of course the data will not be a *good* >reflection of rate of service problems, because the purchaser of an S&S D >is going to be a bit pickier than the purchaser of a Samick spinet and is >going to complain louder if it isn't delivering the sound that it >should. Of course it would be a relatively good indication of reliability >issues as perceived by the average owner of each type of piano. > >A better way for this to be done would be for some technician (or better >still, for some ptg chapter) to put together a database from old service >records. > >Anyway, my point is that you could do this for ALL manufacturers and >therefore not be picking on any particular one. You would be handling the >matter like Consumer Reports would. A summary of common problems by >manufacturer and model would indeed be and excellent tool for consumers, >and I agree that it would probably force some corrective change in the >industry. > >Peace, >Sarah > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "gordon stelter" <lclgcnp@yahoo.com> >To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> >Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 2:08 PM >Subject: Steinway quality control problems---a possible solution ! > > >>I suggest we all keep a folder in our emails, derived >>from these discussions, called "Steinway complaints", >>or some such. Then, the next time a naive citizen >>( or potential buyer ) says "But aren't Steinways the >>best pianos in the WORLD ?!?!" ( which happens to me >>frequently ) we say absolutely nothing. Just request >>that person's email, and downlaod the whole folder to >>them ! >> When S&S gets wind of this, they'll clean up >>their quality control PDQ, I'll bet, and start making >>great, more-or-less uniform pianos once again! >>Thump >> >> >> >>--- David Renaud <drjazzca@yahoo.ca> wrote: >> >>>You wrote: >>>David R has made this public. Assuming his >>>assessment >>>and observations are correct, what does it >>>mean for any of us (or our clients) if we cannot see >>>this situation successfully resolved? >>>David Skolnik >>>------------------------------- >>> >>>Good questions. >>> >>> My observations were followed up by my booking 2 >>>other RPTs, independently to follow up. Both saw and >>>confirmed the results firsthand. Thus I have some >>>degree of confidence that I am on track here. >>> >>> Someone asked about crown. Yes there is crown left >>>on the board. It bas been suggested by more then one >>>person that perhaps the bridge was carved this >>>way.... >>>...inverted slope. Especially since even the bass >>>bridge is inverted. I have seen stranger things. >>> >>> To me, the problem itself questions not the >>>company's quality, stuff happens, everyone messes up >>>from time to time...everyone. It is all about how >>>one handles the problems when they do occur. Every >>>technicians, and cooperation has had problems, not >>>everyone wants responsibility. >>> >>> So, they are sending someone next Thursday. >>>I will look forward to reporting on the outcome >>>Thursday night. >>> >>> Let me say on another note. Without support as >>>demonstrated my by Chapter PTG members, these >>>opportunities to learn through problems over the >>>years >>>would never be so educational, and I would have >>>never >>>come to the place I am now in my business. >>> The support structure I have experienced, >>>and the pool of collective knowledge are my top 2 >>>reasons to respect PTG. >>> >>> Thank You >>> Dave Renaud >>>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC