Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum New Fall 2012 Edition of Piano Buyer

I notice that the "profesional" category of pianos had a short shelf life.

Tur,

The "Professional Grade" category didn't have a short shelf life. I suggested to Larry that "Intermediate Grade" was a more descriptive name and it didn't carry the baggage of the word "professional". He agreed and the change was made.

Okay Steve. So Intermediate replaces professional. But what about Good. Better, and Best? Is that warranted> on what basis?

Part of the criteria for inclusion inthe Professional class was successful use in professional installations like studios, teaching institutions, and concert venues. Make a case for me about how that applies to most of these 'Best" pianos.

I think you know what I'm getting at. Most of these "Best" pianos are not widely found in store inventories. and it's not because they're selling quickly. Many, such as the Steinberg AC and the Seiler ES, have no track records at all either under their current names or earlier incarnations. Who supplied the data? Who did the hands-on testing? What's the basis of judgment for being "Best" of grade??

The basis is the judgement of Fine and the numerous techs/industry professional he consults.

If this is true then the "techs and industry professionals" failed to point out that there are often considerable differences in quality between the different models by very same manufacturer.

This is nowhere more true than among the so-called "Consumer Grade" of pianos.

And NOT only having simply to do with country of origin...

Not making this crucial differentiation, something every unbiased professional I know is only too aware of,is leaving out one very important part of the equation.

Simply rating things by "brand" deprives shoppers the opportunity to check out and select a particular model that's perhaps cutting edge and sticking out from the crowd.

Which is exactly what shoppers in today's highly varied market are after.

Norbert

Did he write something specific about that in the latest issue? If not, I see zero evidence of any backing away from SMP. It's listed on every page of the piano pricing section.

I wrote that because in the past, there was a considerable difference between MSRP and SMP. Now, these two figures are converging for most of the "better" brands. For many brands the two values are identical. It was not always like this. I imagine that Fine received a lot of flak from manufacturers for daring to suggest that a particular discount was standard.

But who pays list price aside from institutions, professional athletes, movie or rock stars, drug dealers, politicians, and greedy developers? I'd like to know.

For the customer. To get the benefit from the SMP you should read the very clearly worded explanation on the pages before the SMPs for particular pianos are listed.

There is no longer is a professional category so your question is meaningless. The relative ranking of the pianos(including Seiler and Steinberg in comparison to Yamaha)in the Piano Buyer has changed only a little and very gradually over the years. The names of the various categories and sub categories don't really matter very much unless you are just trying to be argumentative.

"

If I think about a dyed-in-the-wool Finite, I think of a person who is terribly insecure in his own opinions and desperately needs an authority figure to be his guide. You fill the bill. If Fine were to go off topic in a publication and declare the world to be flat, I believe you would trudge through your daily rounds wearing a parachute just in case you unknowingly veered too close to the edge.

When people disagree with a position you clutch to with all your might, you brand them as argumentative. If they pose a question you don't find interesting in your little word, the question is meaningless.

The Steinberg AC series was not in existence until very recently. Same holds true for the Seiler ES series. For you to state that Fine's ratings of these pianos have not varied much over the years in comparison to the Yamaha C highlights the depth of your ignorance.

My question, which you judge to be meaningless, was addressed to Steve Cohen. He has stated that " intermediate" was deemed better than "professional" in that it didn't carry the same baggage. He has stated in the past that the categories Mr. Fine has structured aree not a finished product and are subject to constant re-evaluation. Mr. Fine has stated the same. For you to insist that the former category cannot be part of a question simply because it has been replaced highlights once again the desperation of your insecurity and your utter dependence on whatever the current ratings scheme happens to be. You can't let go until the next set of ratings replace the old with a freshened infallibility.

I personally do not think an intermediate GRADE, especially one divided arbitrarily into GOOD, BETTER, and BEST advances the cause. This is not argumentative. This is simply feedback from one person based on that person's honest opinion. Feedback should be welcome. I believe it is. When Steve goes into what he has called "carnival barker mode" to promote Pianobuyer, he does not write: "Read it, but by all means remain silent". The game is to generate page views for Pianobuyer. Those in the biz will not pay for ads there unless it can be provem that there is a readership base.

I cannot help your helplessness in feeling so personally threatened by any criticism of Pianobuyer. I believe that both Mr. Fine and Steve are willing to consider reasonable criticism in the process of refining their product. Every professional writer that I know values reasonable criticism, and Mr. Fine is certainly a professional writer. I further believe Pianobuyer is an evolutionary process, just as the piano industry itself is an evolutionary process.

Finally, it's my honest opinion that the mixing of commercial revenues from those you evaluate and the issuance of blunt ratings such as good, better, and best cannot be credible without the inclusion of specific data that supports the findings.

If I think about a dyed-in-the-wool Finite, I think of a person who is terribly insecure in his own opinions and desperately needs an authority figure to be his guide. You fill the bill. If Fine were to go off topic in a publication and declare the world to be flat, I believe you would trudge through your daily rounds wearing a parachute just in case you unknowingly veered too close to the edge.

The Steinberg AC series was not in existence until very recently. Same holds true for the Seiler ES series. For you to state that Fine's ratings of these pianos have not varied much over the years in comparison to the Yamaha C highlights the depth of your ignorance.

My question, which you judge to be meaningless, was addressed to Steve Cohen.

This is simply feedback from one person based on that person's honest opinion. Feedback should be welcome. I believe it is...I cannot help your helplessness in feeling so personally threatened by any criticism of Pianobuyer. I believe that both Mr. Fine and Steve are willing to consider reasonable criticism in the process of refining their product.

Finally, it's my honest opinion that the mixing of commercial revenues from those you evaluate and the issuance of blunt ratings such as good, better, and best cannot be credible without the inclusion of specific data that supports the findings.

Indeed. Compare the company reviews of, say, Yamaha and Kawai, in the last Piano Book supplement with the current company review in Piano Buyer and there is a marked difference in tone.

Subdividing "Intermediate pianos" into 'best-better-good' categories gives evidence of this. It has no basis of reality.

Not unless something has suddenly happened with these pianos that wasn't there before.

First off, there cannot possibly be a number of "industry experts" who all know these different pianos in detail.

The 3 new categories now give the outward appearance that these pianos are now suddenly a few notches above others.