 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
73 members (benkeys, Burkhard, apianostudent, Bellyman, AlkansBookcase, accordeur, akse0435, 16 invisible),
1,827
guests, and
304
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84 |
The Spring 2017 issue of Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer is now online. The print version will be available in a few weeks, and can be ordered now through the website or amazon.com. The feature articles for this issue include: How to Sell Your Piano, by Steve Cohen and Piano Buyer staff Piano Tuning: An Introduction, by Sally Phillips Steingraeber & Sohne: The Quiet Innovations of an Iconic Piano Maker, by Hugh Sung (including video) Review: Roland FP-90, by Stephen Fortner (including eight videos) We've also made some changes to the Map of the Market for New Pianos -- the so-called Ratings Chart -- to better reflect that it is, for the most part, a map of the market by price range for Consumer-Grade Pianos, and by price range and reputation for Performance-Grade Pianos. The commentary that accompanies the Map has been rewritten and, in addition, I've rewritten my blog article " Piano Brand Ratings" to better explain the Map's purpose and how it is formulated. Subjective recommendations of specific models can be found in the Staff Picks section, as well as in guest reviews. Larry Fine
Author, The Piano Book
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Interesting. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've visited the PianoBuyer website, but ironically I looked the market map over just a few days ago! I see Hamburg Steinway has migrated from its own grouping up into the highest new designation: "Iconic"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Interesting. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've visited the PianoBuyer website, but ironically I looked the market map over just a few days ago! I see Hamburg Steinway has migrated from its own grouping up into the highest new designation: "Iconic" I think Hamburg Steinway was always in the highest grouping(whatever it was called at the time). It was NY Steinway that for a short period was in a group by itself between the highest level of performance grade and the third level of performance grade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Excellent new feature articles! The clarity of presentation is always very high. Maybe Sally Phillips can continue with another tuning article in the next issue?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/25/17 09:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Interesting. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've visited the PianoBuyer website, but ironically I looked the market map over just a few days ago! I see Hamburg Steinway has migrated from its own grouping up into the highest new designation: "Iconic" I think Hamburg Steinway was always in the highest grouping(whatever it was called at the time). It was NY Steinway that for a short period was in a group by itself between the highest level of performance grade and the third level of performance grade. Yes, I think you are correct. I'm going from memory, and looking on my phone... Nice to see Charles Walter in the premium rank. I seem to remember that was not the case before. Is that right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
The ranking for performance grade pianos seems like step backwards, to me. Doing it based on prestige and quality (like it was last year) is more useful than based on price.
If you are going to rank them based on price, you should use categories that indicate so, like "most expensive," "expensive" and "relatively expensive." A piano does not become 'venerable' just by being expensive, although a manufacturer probably could by 'iconic' merely by having good product placement.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
I think Hamburg Steinway was always in the highest grouping(whatever it was called at the time). It was NY Steinway that for a short period was in a group by itself between the highest level of performance grade and the third level of performance grade. Quite right. I always thought that it was odd to assign New York Steinway to a subcategory all by itself. Now, with three other marques joining Steinway in the renamed "Venerable" subcategory, the map makes more sense. The elimination of the "Intermediate-Grade" category, and moving all of the intermediate-grade pianos to the top subcategory of the "Consumer-Grade" category, also makes sense. All of the pianos previously considered intermediate-grade are made to be sold at a price point, just like all consumer-grade models; they are simply the best consumer-grade models available. I have two questions for Mr. Fine and his associates. 1) What prompted you to move Grotrian and Sauter down from the "Iconic" subcategory to "Venerable"?;and 2) What prompted you to move August Forster up from the "Distinguished" subcategory to "Venerable"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The ranking for performance grade pianos seems like step backwards, to me. Doing it based on prestige and quality (like it was last year) is more useful than based on price.
If you are going to rank them based on price, you should use categories that indicate so, like "most expensive," "expensive" and "relatively expensive." A piano does not become 'venerable' just by being expensive, although a manufacturer probably could by 'iconic' merely by having good product placement. Actually,I think last year and for a quite a few years, cost has been a major factor in the tier system according to Fine's explanation preceding the chart. And the rankings(except for the category names) have stayed very much the same for at least 8 years with some minor adjustments. I don't think, at least in the Performance Grade category, any piano has moved up or down more than one sub-tier. In the fall of 2009, these were the rankings for Performance Grade pianos: 1. Highest Quality: Bluthner, Boesendorfer, C. Bechstein, Fazioli, Steingraeber, Hamburg Steinway 2. High Quality: Forster, Bechstein Academy, Estonia, Feurich, Grotrian, Haessler, M&H, Sauter, Schimmel(Konzert), Seiler, Shigeru, NY Steinway 3. Good Quality: Bohemia, Walter, Kemble, Petrof, Schimmel(Classic), Schulz Pollman, Hoffmann, Wilh. Steinberg, Vogel In the 2001 edition of The Piano Book(the precursor to The Piano Buyer)Fine even attempted to rank each individual piano make in order in the performance category by rating their performance, confidence, warranty, quality control, and information and then combining those ratings. The list for grands on the performance category looks like this(a few were tied and ranked alphabetically): 1. Highest quality performance pianos:Boesendorfer, Bluthner, Forster, Steingraeber, C. Bechstein, Fazioli, Grotrian, M&H, Steinway(I think just NY was included back then), Baldwin SF-10 2. High performance pianos: Haessler, Sauter, Hoffmann, Walter, Baldwin M1,R1,L1, Shigeru, Yamaha S, Schimmel, Seiler, Petrof, Schulz Pollman, Estonia Those two performance grade categories from 2001 are quite close to the latest performance grade rankings if one considers that: 1. Hamburg Steinway was not ranked back then and NY Steinway has improved a lot since then 2. Shigeru and (Laul owned)Estonia had just begun. Estonia has made numerous improvements since then and there may have been very little info on Shigeru in 2001. 3. In 2001 Baldwin was still making their Artist series pianos in the U.S. 4. Yamaha CFX series did not exist in 2001 [i][/i]
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/26/17 10:13 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
The ranking for performance grade pianos seems like step backwards, to me. Doing it based on prestige and quality (like it was last year) is more useful than based on price.
If you are going to rank them based on price, you should use categories that indicate so, like "most expensive," "expensive" and "relatively expensive." A piano does not become 'venerable' just by being expensive, although a manufacturer probably could by 'iconic' merely by having good product placement. Fine explains the "Venerable" and "Iconic" designations further here (see paragraph re: performance grade pianos)...... http://www.pianobuyer.com/articles/ratings.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84
Full Member
|
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84 |
I have two questions for Mr. Fine and his associates.
1) What prompted you to move Grotrian and Sauter down from the "Iconic" subcategory to "Venerable"?;and
2) What prompted you to move August Forster up from the "Distinguished" subcategory to "Venerable"?
I refer you to the blog article I wrote on the subject, linked to in my original post here. My attempt with the chart is to show how a dealer would likely position the brands if he or she carried every brand. For Consumer-Grade pianos, that's likely to be by price range. For Performance-Grade pianos, where price is less likely to be the deciding factor, that would be by what you might call an aura of prestige that surrounds some brands more than others. Previously, I had labeled the Performance-Grade categories explicitly by "Quality" in addition to "Prestige". However, I decided that it was foolish of me to make judgements about the relative quality of Performance-Grade brands because so much is a matter of personal preference and other subjective factors, much more so than with Consumer-Grade brands. So I've simply tried to segment them to some extent based on prestige. To answer your specific questions: In talking with many people, the general sentiment was that although Grotrian and Sauter were of the "Highest Quality" (the previous name for the top category), they were not necessarily of "Iconic" prestige. I put Steinway (New York) in Venerable because of the special place that brand has in the American piano market, past and present. As for all the other high-end brands, I separated out a few that have been of great quality and stature for generations, for all or most of that time under ownership and operation by the same family (hence the word "Venerable", which means highly respected in part because of their age). That included Grotrian and Sauter, but also August Forster. Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc. before returning relatively recently to the high-end position. This doesn't make them any less "high quality", but it affects slightly how they might be positioned in the market if a dealer carried every brand. Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se, price (for Consumer-Grade pianos) is a reasonable stand-in for quality in a general way, less so when one focuses on a narrow part of the market. For Performance-Grade pianos, quality is really not the issue -- they are all extremely well-made and well-performing pianos. To an extent, price follows prestige there, though not decisively. Again, I refer you to my blog article on the subject. Larry
Author, The Piano Book
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,057
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,057 |
In talking with many people, the general sentiment was that although Grotrian and Sauter were of the "Highest Quality" (the previous name for the top category), they were not necessarily of "Iconic" prestige.
I put Steinway (New York) in Venerable because of the special place that brand has in the American piano market, past and present. As for all the other high-end brands, I separated out a few that have been of great quality and stature for generations, for all or most of that time under ownership and operation by the same family (hence the word "Venerable", which means highly respected in part because of their age). That included Grotrian and Sauter, but also August Forster. Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc. before returning relatively recently to the high-end position. This doesn't make them any less "high quality", but it affects slightly how they might be positioned in the market if a dealer carried every brand.
Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se, price (for Consumer-Grade pianos) is a reasonable stand-in for quality in a general way
Larry
![[Linked Image]](http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling.gif)
Russell I. Kassman Technician -Consultant FORMER/Semi-Retired: USA Rep.for C.Bechstein & Sauter; Founder/R. KASSMAN Piano; Consultant - GUANGZHOU Pearl River Piano Co. www.RussellKassman.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
In talking with many people, the general sentiment was that although Grotrian and Sauter were of the "Highest Quality" (the previous name for the top category), they were not necessarily of "Iconic" prestige.
I put Steinway (New York) in Venerable because of the special place that brand has in the American piano market, past and present. As for all the other high-end brands, I separated out a few that have been of great quality and stature for generations, for all or most of that time under ownership and operation by the same family (hence the word "Venerable", which means highly respected in part because of their age). That included Grotrian and Sauter, but also August Forster. Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc. before returning relatively recently to the high-end position. This doesn't make them any less "high quality", but it affects slightly how they might be positioned in the market if a dealer carried every brand.
Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se, price (for Consumer-Grade pianos) is a reasonable stand-in for quality in a general way. Larry Glad you find this so amusing.  Mr. Fine - thanks for the clarification - and the service you provide to those of us who love pianos !! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se Thinking this says it all. Consumers, their own preferences and of course "budgets" is what rules the market. In fact, the preference for a particular instrument confines the "quality" musicians see in the instruments they choose. Norbert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se Thinking this says it all. It definitely doesn't say it all because you didn't even quote the rest of the sentence you commented on. An extreme example of taking something out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035 |
I see Blüthner in the Iconic range. How many grand pianos do they make a year these days? I visited their company showroom in Leipzig a few years back quite expecting to see "Iconic", however they were mostly focusing on electronic keyboards or their electronic/acoustic uprights. They did have one grand up against the window in the corner.
Thanks-
Last edited by phacke; 03/27/17 03:13 AM. Reason: Typo
phacke
Steinway YM (1933)
...Working on:
J. S. Bach, Toccata (G minor) BWV 915
(and trying not to forget the other stuff I know)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc Fazioli which is only about 30 years old is in "iconic" tier but a much older and certainly highly " venerable" company like Grotrian, the pianos of which were used by the likes of Clara Schumann is not? According to that distinction a relative "newcomer" like Fazioli should perhaps rather be in "distinguished" category? And Steinway including the Hamburg made models, certainly changed ownership on several occasions in last few decades. As did a few others. So their variable ratings must be based on some other factors? Fact is despite the nice wordings, the perception of 1-2-3-4 class persists... Conclusion: If things change on a seemingly ongoing basis, why even *rate* pianos outside "Performance Grade" or "Consumer Grade" at all? IMHO, earlier editions in that regard were more clear & 'useful' in their rankings. They also didn't offer same contradictions. Or is the answer perhaps to be found at the below: Although the Map doesn't rate quality per se, price (for Consumer-Grade pianos) is a reasonable stand-in for quality in a general way Forcing those makers who can deliver great, same or even better quality at lower price point to raise their prices simply to get into higher tier? Funny enough, a notion having been discussed by some before. Sorry, not making much sense to me. Norbert
Last edited by Norbert; 03/27/17 01:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc Fazioli which is only about 30 years old is in "iconic" tier but a much older and certainly highly " venerable" company like Grotrian, the pianos of which were used by the likes of Clara Schumann is not? I also thought Fazioli was misplaced, and I like Fazioli. I really thought they got it right in the previous edition.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The ranking for performance grade pianos seems like step backwards, to me. Doing it based on prestige and quality (like it was last year) is more useful than based on price.
If you are going to rank them based on price, you should use categories that indicate so, like "most expensive," "expensive" and "relatively expensive." A piano does not become 'venerable' just by being expensive, although a manufacturer probably could by 'iconic' merely by having good product placement. To the best of my knowledge, last year's ranking for Performance Pianos included price in the rankings scheme so your first paragraph comment is not correct. Nor is this year's ranking solely based on price as your second paragraph suggests.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
Conclusion: If things change on a seemingly ongoing basis, why even *rate* pianos outside "Performance Grade" or "Consumer Grade" at all? A fair question... We do so because, in the humble opinion of the staff, we think that it is what shoppers, our target audience, want.
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc Fazioli which is only about 30 years old is in "iconic" tier but a much older and certainly highly " venerable" company like Grotrian, the pianos of which were used by the likes of Clara Schumann is not? According to that distinction a relative "newcomer" like Fazioli should perhaps rather be in "distinguished" category? Your selective quoting is getting you in trouble again here. If you remember that price is a consideration in the rankings and read the description of "iconic" (that comes before the description of "distinguished") namely... Here, I group some of the best and most expensive pianos based on what I call their “prestige†value. Brands now labeled Iconic are those that seem, by general agreement, to be the ones that would be the flagship line of any dealer that carried them—they are, so to speak, the “gods†of the piano industry.
then the placement of Fazioli as "iconic" makes perfect sense. And Steinway including the Hamburg made models, certainly changed ownership on several occasions in last few decades. As did a few others. So their variable ratings must be based on some other factors? Yes, and if you read Fine's descriptions of the tiers you will find out what they are. There are many factors at play....cost, prestige, newness to the market, ownership, etc. and focusing on just one is not how to read the chart.Conclusion: If things change on a seemingly ongoing basis, why even *rate* pianos outside "Performance Grade" or "Consumer Grade" at all? IMHO, earlier editions in that regard were more clear & 'useful' in their rankings.
Earlier editions certainly did more than rank pianos as performance grade and consumer grade so I can't see any logic to your comment. There have been successive editions of the PB with zero change in the rankings for Performance Piano so describing changes as "ongoing" is misleading. OTOH if there were never any changes among the 50+ makes, that wouldn't make much sense either. If you read my earlier post showing the rankings from 2009 and 2001 you'll see the rankings have actually changed relatively little even over longer periods of time. And compared to the rankings in the previous edition of the PB, the changes in the latest edition have been what I would call very small.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/27/17 02:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc Fazioli which is only about 30 years old is in "iconic" tier but a much older and certainly highly " venerable" company like Grotrian, the pianos of which were used by the likes of Clara Schumann is not? According to that distinction a relative "newcomer" like Fazioli should perhaps rather be in "distinguished" category? Your selective quoting is getting you in trouble again here. If you remember that price is a consideration in the rankings and read the description of "iconic" (that comes before the description of "distinguished") namely... Here, I group some of the best and most expensive pianos based on what I call their “prestige†value. Brands now labeled Iconic are those that seem, by general agreement, to be the ones that would be the flagship line of any dealer that carried them—they are, so to speak, the “gods†of the piano industry.
then the placement of Fazioli as "iconic" makes perfect sense. The only way a Fazioli can be considered a "God" piano in front of Steinway is based on its price.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 12,370
PW Gold Subscriber Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
PW Gold Subscriber Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 12,370 |
'Piano Buyer' (for which I am very thankful!) is really named 'Piano Buyer Guide', so it not intended as a Bible of ratings but rather a thorough guide. REALLY, does it matter if a top tier piano is iconic, or venerable or..... What is extremely helpful is a rough categorization and a rough cost estimate....and the GUIDE does that admirably.
I guess someone wants to put on their website or brochure 'Brand XXX is rated as XXX by Piano Buyer Guide', just like restaurants like to flaunt their reviewer ratings. SIGH
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Most of the other high-end brands, now called "Distinguished", are either relative newcomers to the high-end category (Yamaha CF, Shigeru Kawai), or went through various periods of decline, change of ownership, etc Fazioli which is only about 30 years old is in "iconic" tier but a much older and certainly highly " venerable" company like Grotrian, the pianos of which were used by the likes of Clara Schumann is not? According to that distinction a relative "newcomer" like Fazioli should perhaps rather be in "distinguished" category? Your selective quoting is getting you in trouble again here. If you remember that price is a consideration in the rankings and read the description of "iconic" (that comes before the description of "distinguished") namely... Here, I group some of the best and most expensive pianos based on what I call their “prestige†value. Brands now labeled Iconic are those that seem, by general agreement, to be the ones that would be the flagship line of any dealer that carried them—they are, so to speak, the “gods†of the piano industry.
then the placement of Fazioli as "iconic" makes perfect sense. The only way a Fazioli can be considered a "God" piano in front of Steinway is based on its price. What is this statement based on? As far as I know NY Steinway has never been rated as highly as Fazioli, and NY Steinway has actually moved slightly up in the rankings in the last year or so. Did you notice that Hamburg Steinway(which seems to be chosen by a majority of the biggest pianists even when playing in the U.S.)and Fazioli are in the same "iconic" tier?
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/27/17 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
[ I also thought Fazioli was misplaced, and I like Fazioli.I really thought they got it right in the previous edition. Fazioli was in the same place in the previous edition and has been in the highest possible tier for at least the last 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656 |
Well, regardless of any other factor, it doesn't get more "Iconic" than a NY Steinway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 369
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 369 |
Always enjoy seeing this book -- makes me wish I were shopping for a piano!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Well, regardless of any other factor, it doesn't get more "Iconic" than a NY Steinway. Yes, say "Steinway," and the average Joe will nod knowingly. Ask him where it's built and he may even know NY. He likely will not guess Hamburg (especially since the guide is designed for the American market). Of course, one can always redefine what "iconic" means... In my research, I've found its best to use simple ordinal designators, rather than superlatives or other ill-chosen words whose meanings can be vague, ambiguous, misconstrued or even offensive in certain cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
To me, piano shoppers are the real judges of things. We can label and talk about pianos all we want [ by the way unknown in Europe where many of the best pianos have always made...] but the final test is and perhaps "should" always be the buyer him/herself!! Rest assured, I have witnessed countless times that a "lower rated" pianos eventually became the preferred choice over a higher rated one - no longer surprised by it! But the buyer may still have " lingering doubt" when reading the ratings. Question: what purpose does this actually serve? That's why strongly believe that today it makes more sense to "rate" pianos into the 2 major groups: "Performance Grade" and "Consumer Grade" Mr. Fine in his last edition has specifically pointed out that differentiation of the various brands within the 2 tiers is increasingly difficult to achieve. And even dealers and reps, when going to conventions, can and *are* easily confused by it all. I know because many [quietly] admit to it. So why make the effort creating nothing but ongoing "debate"? Let's not forget that "ratings" by customers is exactly whats going on on showroom floors. In addition, "bulk ratings" would perhaps achieve a better sense of mutual respect, similar as the Europeans do. As I have witnessed in many factory visits over there. Which IMHO is long overdue in the industry helping all parties involved. Nobody has to present the "holier-than-you" attitude. It certainly does not help buyers to sort things out for themselves. Lets make piano shopping FUN again and respect the decisions made by shoppers themselves. I don't know what else should really matter. Norbert
Last edited by Norbert; 03/27/17 09:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46 |
I found the guide to be really helpful when I was looking for a new piano. It gave me the information I needed and helped me to focus my search. I like the current format.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Simply dividing pianos into two groups(Performance Grade and Consumer Grade)is not a good idea IMO:
1. In the present ratings, there are pianos at the "bottom" of Performance Grade(PG) and at the top of Consumer Grade(CG). Most would agree that the pianos at the bottom of Performance Grade are not the equal of those at the very top of that category. Similarly, those at the bottom of Consumer Grade are not of the same quality as those at the top of that category.
With just two ranking categories these significant differences are no longer apparent. There could certainly be an argument for shrinking the sub-tiers in Performance Grade to three(as was quite often the case)or even increasing them to five. Or for moving some make up or down one sub-group. But shrinking the entire ranking system into two broad categories in effect does away with any meaningful ranking. Pianos of significant quality difference would be in the same category and this would be inaccurate, mostly useless, and even harmful to potential piano buyers.
2. If there were only two broad rankings then those makes presently at the bottom of PG would get an unfair boost in prestige and those at the top of CG would get an unfair decrease in prestige. The pianos presently at the top of CG(formerly in a third intermediate group) would be rightly upset.
3. It's not relevant "that piano buyers are the real judge". It goes without saying they make the final decision, but the whole purpose of the rankings and staff picks is that most buyers want independent(not necessarily from a salesman/dealer with obvious bias) help choosing a piano. They understand that except for very experienced(both in terms of their piano skill and familiarity with many pianos)pianists, the reasonable advice of using their fingers and ears to decide only goes so far.
4. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "ongoing debate" about pianos. In fact, that's what most of the tens of thousands of posts on this Sub Forum are about.
5. The fact that "Mr. Fine in his last edition has specifically pointed out that differentiation of the various brands within the 2 tiers is increasingly difficult to achieve" is nothing new in for the Piano Buyer. This has been pointed out by Mr. Fine for quite a few years at this point. But he and, I think, most buyers still think attempting to divide PG and CG into sub-tiers makes sense. Increasingly difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done...it just implies, as Fine clearly states, that with the two major subgroups the quality of the pianos has been getting closer.
Of course, one has to carefully read Fine's very carefully worded explanation of the two major categories and subgroups and all of his other discussion of the ratings to really benefit from and also know the limitations of the ratings. Unfortunately, I think that a fairly high percentage of people don't do this, and so they end up with misconceptions and misinterpretations.
6. Dealers(not all, but many) will often have their own obvious agenda with regard to the PB. If it helps then sell a particular make, they will endorse it, but if they feel it doesn't help them they will criticize it. The idea that PB somehow "disrespects" the opinions of buyers or takes the fun out of piano buying is quite silly IMO.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/28/17 11:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182 |
My 2 cents.
I enjoy reading the piano market overview, and would like to thank the makers of the list.
But of course, some decisions may be questionable; especially when a piano is categorized Professional or Consumer Grade (as mentioned in previous posts).
When I bought my Yamaha C2 with Silent System 5 years ago, I had, among others, two other piano brands with silent systems on my possible candidates list which were in the same price range as the Yamaha C: W.Hoffmann (Tradition) and Irmler (Professional).
Ultimately, Yamaha made the cut. I liked the touch of the Yamaha better than the touch of the Hoffmann, and the Irmler wasn't really my cup of tea. But this does not change that these pianos were in a comparable price range.
5 years later, the Yamaha has been replaced by the CX, but the price range is still the same as for Hoffmann and Irmler Professional.
And for all three brands, I believe that there is no difference prestige-wise. Yamaha builds premium pianos, and Hoffmann and Irmler are subsidiaries (cheap brands) of "iconic" brands (Bechstein, Blüthner).
However, on the list, the W.Hoffmann is categorized "Professional Grade", the Yamaha CX and Irmler Professional are "Consumer Grade". I am wondering why.
Is Bechstein superior to Blüthner? Does Yamaha not have enough prestige with the name, despite building the CFX which is considered a very fine piano by professionals?
Maybe, if price and prestige are the main factors, a price list would be more useful; and also an indicator about which brand belongs to which manufacturer; or in which part of the world the piano lines are manufactured.
But this is just my layman's opinion. And I accept that in a globalized market, it's not easy to determine where a piano has been built; and maybe this information is also not helpful.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG.
My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
However, on the list, the W.Hoffmann is categorized "Professional Grade", the Yamaha CX and Irmler Professional are "Consumer Grade". I am wondering why.
Is Bechstein superior to Blüthner? Does Yamaha not have enough prestige with the name, despite building the CFX which is considered a very fine piano by professionals?
There is no "Professional Grade" category in the Piano Buyer guide, but there is a "Performance Grade" category. (There IS a "Professional" SUBCATEGORY in the "Consumer Grade" category, however.) The W. Hoffmann Professional and Tradition lines series in the "Notable" subcategory of the "Performance-Grade" category. The W. Hoffmann Vision series, on the other hand is in the "Professional" subcategory of the "Consumer-Grade" category, the same subcategory as the Yamaha CX and Irmler Professional series. The W. Hoffman Professional and Tradition series are made entirely in the Czech Republic. The Vision series is assembled in the Czech Republic with strung backs imported from China. Their Chinese componentry and lower prices would probably be why the Vision pianos are rated lower than their Professional/Tradition cousins.
Last edited by Almaviva; 03/28/17 09:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
I like the new map design. I only wish that your names for the Performance-Grade subcategories - Iconic, Venerable, Distinguished & Notable - were more precise. Otherwise, job well done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
Well, regardless of any other factor, it doesn't get more "Iconic" than a NY Steinway. Hi Keith. Long time - no see. You are right all Steinway's are indeed "iconic". The problem we faced was that the Hamburg Steinway is still thought to be significantly superior to the NY Steinway's by the overwhelming majority of industry pros (and I would guess you are in that group). We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. Also, I think everyone should know that Larry, Owen, and I (and a few others) spent many hours discussing, not only these new ratings, but also: * Whether to have ratings at all *Which brands fall between the cracks and what to do with them *How to handle pianos that are over- or under-priced *How much should other significant issues, such as warranty, affect ranking *What best serves the shoppers who use Piano Buyer as a tool to help them make a wise decision And much, much, more. I would estimate that we spend about 30-40 hours per issue just discussing ratings. We readily admit the ratings should be considered general guidelines. Kinda like the "Pirate's Code" for those Johnny Depp fans - "they're more like guidelines".) 
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
You are right all Steinway's are indeed "iconic". The problem we faced was that the Hamburg Steinway is still thought to be significantly superior to the NY Steinway's by the overwhelming majority of industry pros (and I would guess you are in that group). We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. Hasn't Hamburg Steinway always been rated above NY Steinway once Hamburg Steinway was included in the ratings? Also, I think everyone should know that Larry, Owen, and I (and a few others) spent many hours discussing, not only these new ratings, but also:
* Whether to have ratings at all
*Which brands fall between the cracks and what to do with them
*How to handle pianos that are over- or under-priced
*How much should other significant issues, such as warranty, affect ranking
*What best serves the shoppers who use Piano Buyer as a tool to help them make a wise decision
And much, much, more.
I would estimate that we spend about 30-40 hours per issue just discussing ratings. Wow! This would make a great reality TV show albeit for a small number of fanatics. Lang Lang could be the host. Dealers or techs who lost a challenge would have to play for x hours on 100 year old low quality verticals and people could be voted off the dealership for having tin ears or not knowing the exact thickness of Mason Hamlin rims etc.!
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/28/17 05:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656 |
Hi Steve,
Like I said, regardless of any other factor, it doesn't get more "Iconic" than NY Steinway. I am sure the team at Piano Buyer worked really hard to come up with the current classifications. I haven't looked at them very closely. The point I was making was just based on the actual definition of the word iconic, not how the team at Piano Buyer is using that word. It is really nothing other than me being a bit pedantic about a word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298 |
Mr.Cohen's explanation how the NY steinway, clearly iconic in the general meaning of the term, was 'downgraded' to 'merely venerable' because how its Hamburg cousin is perceived . for me this implies a considerable weight given to market valuation, and the subjective (collective it might be) notion of 'prestige'. no doubt this might be of great concern or priority to consumers. they have to rely on themselves to make distinctions of quality as an independent entity from prestige.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
It is really nothing other than me being a bit pedantic about a word. There's nothing 'pedantic' about it. If anything, the somewhat arbitrarily chosen wording IMHOs here only serves to confuse buyers. At same time I doubt this was the intention. Wish we could have buyers offer their own voting system: the only one that counts! Doubting that a piano in somewhat 'lower' strata would later be less loved by its buyer than in higher. Or vice versa. Which would perhaps be the next logical conclusion to make.  The other concern one can easily have with the current rating system is that buyers may well be guided by it but then not really like or "connect" with the dealer for the supposedly better, i.e. 'higher rated' piano. Which can quickly put more stress and confusion on the entire shopping experience. Power to the buyer: everyone enjoy his/her own shopping experience and make their decision accordingly!! Just vote or 'rate' with your cheque book! Don't forget, every factor of the buying process will have to fit nicely together for the consumer in the end! It's easy to have a nice piano but live in misery after... Now, what again was the "best" or "better" piano? Norbert
Last edited by Norbert; 03/28/17 07:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Mr.Cohen's explanation how the NY steinway, clearly iconic in the general meaning of the term, was 'downgraded' to 'merely venerable' because how its Hamburg cousin is perceived . for me this implies a considerable weight given to market valuation, and the subjective (collective it might be) notion of 'prestige'. no doubt this might be of great concern or priority to consumers. they have to rely on themselves to make distinctions of quality as an independent entity from prestige. Hamburg Steinway has always been rated above NY Steinway in the PB. So in that sense at least, everything is the same as it has been for many years. Hamburg Steinway has always been in the highest sub-tier of Performance Pianos and NY Steinway has never been in the highest sub-tier. I think it's a mistake to place a lot of emphasis on one's personal definitions the sub-tier names "iconic", "venerable", and "distinguished" in order to agree or disagree with the rankings. Those three words are probably listed as synonyms of each other in a thesaurus. Many would probably say that NY Steinway is iconic but many would also say NY Steinway is venerable and distinguished. So there is no reason that NY Steinway has to logically be in the iconic tier.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/28/17 08:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. How would you like your teacher to say, "you're doing A quality work, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to give you a B to distinguish between you?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46 |
We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. How would you like your teacher to say, "you're doing A quality work, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to give you a B to distinguish between you?" You would then subdivide and have A+, A and A- If there is a significant difference, then I see no problem in having different categories to express this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. How would you like your teacher to say, "you're doing A quality work, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to give you a B to distinguish between you?" You would then subdivide and have A+, A and A- If there is a significant difference, then I see no problem in having different categories to express this. How would you like your teacher to say, "you've earned an A+, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to 'move you down' to an A to distinguish between you?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46 |
He wouldn't be doing A+ work if the quality of his work was noticeably Inferior. There has to be something to differentiate in quality and Piano Buyer clearly feel the Hamburg and a few others are superior to the NY.
The best of the best got the A+, some others got As, Bs and Cs (or equivalent). Seems quite reasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
He wouldn't be doing A+ work if the quality of his work was noticeably Inferior. There has to be something to differentiate in quality and Piano Buyer clearly feel the Hamburg and a few others are superior to the NY.
The best of the best got the A+, some others got As, Bs and Cs (or equivalent). Seems quite reasonable to me.
He said: We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. The problem, as I see it, is that they "moved the NY down." From what did they move it down, if not the gradation it otherwise deserved? In other words, because the framework isn't robust enough to reflect what they perceived to be the relationship between the two--and all the others--they arbitrarily chose to "penalize" NY. For example, should we assume that NY is actually superior to all the other "venerable" makes, since it seemingly deserves to be included in "iconic" (but wasn't because Hamburg was already there)? And what would be the harm in including both NY and Hamburg in "iconic?" Do we assume that Hamburg and every other make listed as "iconic" are of exactly the same quality?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
He wouldn't be doing A+ work if the quality of his work was noticeably Inferior. There has to be something to differentiate in quality and Piano Buyer clearly feel the Hamburg and a few others are superior to the NY. And they've felt that way for at least nine years(the earliest edition of the PB I have) or around the last 18 issues of the Piano Buyer. This is certainly nothing new or surprising. And I think that despite recent improvements to NY Steinways most would agree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46 |
He wouldn't be doing A+ work if the quality of his work was noticeably Inferior. There has to be something to differentiate in quality and Piano Buyer clearly feel the Hamburg and a few others are superior to the NY.
The best of the best got the A+, some others got As, Bs and Cs (or equivalent). Seems quite reasonable to me.
He said: We couldn't move the Hamburg up, so, to distinguish between the two we moved the NY down. The problem, as I see it, is that they "moved the NY down." From what did they move it down, if not the gradation it otherwise deserved? In other words, because the framework isn't robust enough to reflect what they perceived to be the relationship between the two--and all the others--they arbitrarily chose to "penalize" NY. For example, should we assume that NY is actually superior to all the other "venerable" makes, since it seemingly deserves to be included in "iconic" (but wasn't because Hamburg was already there)? And what would be the harm in including both NY and Hamburg in "iconic?" Do we assume that Hamburg and every other make listed as "iconic" are of exactly the same quality? To me it suggests that Steinway Hamburg, Bosendorfer and a few other are of a similar quality and Steinway NY are a bit below that quality. That's how I read it at least. I understand that they way it was worded could be read that it was penalised but to me the meaning was fairly clear that the NY, although excellent, was felt to be a little lower in quality than those in the iconic class and the only way this could be shown was by putting it a slightly lower class.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060 |
To me it suggests that the rating system is garbage.
Semipro Tech
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182 |
There is no "Professional Grade" category in the Piano Buyer guide, but there is a "Performance Grade" category. (There IS a "Professional" SUBCATEGORY in the "Consumer Grade" category, however.) Whoops. My bad. You are correct. The W. Hoffmann Professional and Tradition lines series in the "Notable" subcategory of the "Performance-Grade" category.
The W. Hoffmann Vision series, on the other hand is in the "Professional" subcategory of the "Consumer-Grade" category, the same subcategory as the Yamaha CX and Irmler Professional series. And this is questionable from my point of view. The W.Hoffmann Vision, IMO, is comparable to the Yamaha GC line, pricewise and probably quality-wise. The W. Hoffman Professional and Tradition series are made entirely in the Czech Republic. The Vision series is assembled in the Czech Republic with strung backs imported from China. Their Chinese componentry and lower prices would probably be why the Vision pianos are rated lower than their Professional/Tradition cousins. I admit that I don't know where Yamaha builds their CX line. The C line was built in Japan, which is at least on par with Europe quality-wise. I don't know if the GC is built in Japan or Indonesia.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG.
My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
How would you like your teacher to say, "you're doing A quality work, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to give you a B to distinguish between you?" I'd accept the assessment that I didn't deserve an A+ in the first place - and strive to do better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
I admit that I don't know where Yamaha builds their CX line. The C line was built in Japan, which is at least on par with Europe quality-wise. I don't know if the GC is built in Japan or Indonesia.
All Yamaha grand pianos sold in the U.S. are made in Japan EXCEPT for the bargain-basement GB1K model.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,182 |
How would you like your teacher to say, "you've earned an A+, but your brother is smarter than you, so we're going to 'move you down' to an A to distinguish between you?"
But in this case, the NY Steinway apparently did not do an A+ work. Steve Cohen wrote that among professionals, the Hamburg Steinway is considered superior. If the NY Steinway was perfect, it would be iconic as well. I believe that piano tests with blindfolded pianists could be interesting. You blindfold a bunch of pianists, put them in front of different pianos, and ask for their opinion on touch, sound, action. Then you ask them to rate the pianos. And the next step could be: Put the pianos in the academies and concert halls, and after one or two years, have the same pianists test the same instruments, still blindfolded. And compare the results to the first time. But I digress. The piano buyer's guide is not a test report. Just a guide.
My grand piano is a Yamaha C2 SG.
My other Yamaha is an XMAX 300.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
Perhaps my remark about down grading the NY Steinway was not well worded.
The NY Steinway is not perceived as being in the same class as the Hamburg. Our ratings reflect that perception...and always have.
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298 |
ThaiBlue, your reading would be completely accurate about relative 'quality' if you could be sure the ratings panel completely excluded prestige, status, perceived value in the market from their classification. Or, if you accept those factors are part of how you choose to define quality. if we are using the English language in a conventional context and not a marketing jargon version, the very words 'iconic', 'venerable', 'distinguished', 'notable', are subjective ; 'performance' vs. 'consumer' grade less so. the hierarchy in the performance ranks also corresponds to the high retail price estimates -- the highest prices listed for each tier is consistently lower than the tiers above it. and that begs the question, are the most expensive prestige brands also higher in quality than the 'merely distinguished/notable' brands. dealers of those prestige brands have a considerable stake in marketing that conceit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,057
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,057 |
All of this bantering up and back is really fun to read ![[Linked Image]](http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/eating/popcorn.gif) But, I think the essence of the relevancy of the "ratings" boils down to some pretty simple facts (not alternative): It is HIGHLY unlikely that any consumer/pianist/enthusiast considering any of the pianos listed in the "iconic" or "venerable" segment would be swayed or pay much attention to anything but his/her own ears and fingers. Actually, I don't think those considering pianos in the "distinguished" or "notable" segments would pay much attention, or give much credence to these "ratings" if it were widely known that these are purely, simply opinions of someone who has NEVER been in a European factory, NEVER been in a Chinese factory, or for that matter NEVER been in 99.9% of the factories that his FOR PROFIT publication is "rating." I have known Larry for many years, since before the "Pianobook" days, and I think he tries to present a fair and unbiased "map" of the new piano market as he sees it. In the early days, pre-online (ah yes, there was such a time)publication, the Pianobook actually sent out review forms to technicians and industry veterans to, in my opinion, get a better sense of what quality the pianos actually were. Today, Larry and his "team" are mostly using trade shows to do their research and "testing." One of his primary "reviewers" recently stated that his rating of a specific brand/size was soley based on his playing that piano at a NAMM show. Now, anyone who has been trying pianos or in this industry for more than 2 saeconds can tell you that trade shows are the absolute WORST place to really evaluate a piano. Conversely, many dealers, like Glenn Treibitz, Keith Kerman, Rich Galassini,Sam Bennett and even me  routinely visit factories all over the world. While we are certainly biased towards the brands we carry, we do make our selections based on what we observe in the various factories and based on our personal likes and dislikes. The problem is that those most likely to use the "ratings" or place any credence on them, are those who DO NOT play and are seeking some "independent" advice on what to look for. While most do NOT read the entire book, or for that matter the comments Larry makes about how the "ratings" are developed, they do place an inordinate amount of reliance on its data. To those people, the system used in the "Consumer Grade" pianos is, IMNSHO, useless - but they don't know that. In the first Pianobook, which I have in my hot little hands, there was a survey sent out which was published side-by-side to the "ratings." However, the "ratings" were broken down by brand and model/size, and each received a numerical rating based on Larry's compilation of the data he received. To me, that would be a much more valuable way for a novice piano buyer to determine which pianos they should consider. The current method, of rating them largely by price is fraught with chicanery because, let's face it, many manufacturers play games with the actual "wholesale" of their products, and Larry knows it. The other conundrum is that even IF a "consumer grade" piano were to be the best in the world, Larry would rate it down in the depths of, um, purgatory because of its price. Is that fair, or even what his primary audience expect from him? I'll leave it to others to to decide that. The semantics of the term "Iconic" in the upper echelons is problematic, IMHO. Even to those of us who have routinely promulgated that the American Steinway is not as good as its reputation, I am sure none would disagree that it is, regardless of quality, the most "iconic" piano in the realm. The fact that the New York factory predates the Hamburg factory by decades gives further credence to its stalwart status. But, companies like Bösendorfer, Blüthner, C. Bechstein, Sauter, Grotrian and Steingraeber, that pre-date even the American Steinway, have withstood the test of time, and surely deserve a place among the icons of the 88's. Yet, a virtual "newby" from Italy is prominently called "Iconic" and companies like Pearl River and Parsons, who have been building pianos significantly longer than our pisano, are consistantly questioned in this forum for their "sustainability." Baffling. The real test of a purportedly unbiased consumer rating publication is its use by its target audience. At one time, it was not unusual to see a family enter my shop carrying a copy of the Pianobook, and in later years an Ipad with Pianobuyer prominently displayed. As the ratings have changed over the years, I have seen less and less of its use by consumers. I would venture to say that the recent "ratings" layout changes have rendered it, um, less useful  .
Russell I. Kassman Technician -Consultant FORMER/Semi-Retired: USA Rep.for C.Bechstein & Sauter; Founder/R. KASSMAN Piano; Consultant - GUANGZHOU Pearl River Piano Co. www.RussellKassman.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,298 |
dankon, Mr. Kassman, for sharing a considered and informed response to my unvoiced question after seeing the 'Map of the Market', which was, how do piano professionals who work with Asian built pianos look at these ratings ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The real test of a purportedly unbiased consumer rating publication is its use by its target audience. At one time, it was not unusual to see a family enter my shop carrying a copy of the Pianobook, and in later years an Ipad with Pianobuyer prominently displayed. As the ratings have changed over the years, I have seen less and less of its use by consumers. I would venture to say that the recent "ratings" layout changes have rendered it, um, less useful . I can't speak for how often customers use the PB, but I can speak about how the ratings have changed in the last 17 years in the Performance Pianos category. They've changed very little, and I think the pianos in the sub-group right below Performance pianos have also remained little changed. There have been changes in the names of sub-groups and sometimes the number of sub-groups in the Performance category have been three and not four like in the present list. Other than that, I don't think any piano has moved more than one subgroup in either direction(which I consider a very minor change) and many have remained in exactly the same sub-group during those 17 years. Just look at my listing of the Performance rankings from 2009 and 2001 in my earlier post in this thread. So I would wonder why the PB was, in your opinion, more popular a while ago and less popular/useful today when then rankings haven't changed much. Of course, if a user doesn't read the material in the PB about the rankings, the chart may be less useful than if they do read it. I think those do read the explanation would find the rankings as useful as ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
Today, Larry and his "team" are mostly using trade shows to do their research and "testing." One of his primary "reviewers" recently stated that his rating of a specific brand/size was soley based on his playing that piano at a NAMM show. Now, anyone who has been trying pianos or in this industry for more than 2 saeconds can tell you that trade shows are the absolute WORST place to really evaluate a piano. Conversely, many dealers, like Glenn Treibitz, Keith Kerman, Rich Galassini,Sam Bennett and even me routinely visit factories all over the world. While we are certainly biased towards the brands we carry, we do make our selections based on what we observe in the various factories and based on our personal likes and dislikes. I am an integral member of Larry's team. Some would say I was his right hand. I have been to piano factories in Japan, China, S. Korea, Indonesia, Germany, NY, Hickory NC, Morgantown SC, and DeKalb, IL. And, I don't carry any of the performance brands not am I a consultant for any of them. Our Review Editor, terminaldegree, regularly attends Winter NAMM and works the show hard. True it isn't an ideal environment, but with a little effort one can evaluate the relative quality of the pianos. Further, we get a lot of input from industry professionals, a fact you are very aware of since I consult with you often!!!!!
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 496
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 496 |
The taper of soundboards on NY's website on both Model B and D is listed as 9 to 6 mm, which was reported to be the case of Hamburg's (apparently in the past, mentioned on this forum, that Model B's are different). Hamburg website has very little technical details. Many on this forum are more experienced with both factories' products and should be able to provide more insights. Those 3 sites appeared to quote, more or less, from similar sources.
1969 Hamburg Steinway B, rebuilt by PianoCraft in 2017
2013 New York Steinway A
Kawai MP11
Previously: 2005 Yamaha GB1, 1992 Yamaha C5
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84
Full Member
|
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 84 |
Russell:
Reading your posts, one would wonder whether you even took the time to read my blog article on the subject. The Map is not a "rating" in the sense of a judgment about the pianos. It's just a way to introduce people who are not familiar with the piano market to how the pianos are marketed by price and/or reputation. Considering that most people come to the piano market with a budget in mind, knowing how much the various brands cost is valuable information. While price does not correlate absolutely with quality, it certainly does in a general way; otherwise it would be very hard for a dealer to sell any higher-priced pianos.
You are right that good players will not (and should not) pay attention to the ratings regarding performance-grade pianos. But not all purchasers of those pianos (or any pianos) are good players, or even players at all. People buy pianos for many reasons, including to appear cultured, for decorating, for other people, or as something they can grow into over time.
The Map is not based on trying pianos out at trade show, although in the past, sometimes we did that. I have decided not to mix such reviews with the Map anymore because it led to too much confusion about the purpose of the Map. We do try pianos out at the trade show for the Staff Picks section. While it's true that we may miss some really good pianos that are not prepped well at the show, it's unlikely we would find a bad piano to be good at the show due to less than ideal conditions.
I also think that you overrate factory tours as a way of knowing the "true" quality of a piano. Factory tours are every bit as much public relations performances as they are informational in nature. It would take a lot more than a tour to know how well the pianos are really made.
The reason you previously encountered people walking into your store with my book under their arm, while you do not anymore, is that now 99% of the readers read it online and are more likely to carry their iPhone into the store, not a book. Also, at one time, my book was the only information out there; that isn't so anymore.
It's true, as you say, that if a low-priced consumer-grade piano were the best in the world, it would be misrated on my chart. But how likely is that, really? At most, some models of some brands may be off by one category if rated on the basis of performance, without taking into account other things that may be important to consumers, such as name recognition, resale value, warranty, etc.
You seem to wax romantic about the old days, when I ranked individual brands and models by quality using input from technicians. But we've known each other for 30 years, Russell, and I recall many times you weren't happy about those ratings, either. In those days, when so many of the pianos sold in the U.S. were so bad, it at least made sense to separate the good from the bad through ratings. These days, with the general quality so high, ratings based on examining the pianos, or performance, would probably be so subjective and so individual, that they would be useless for consumers. Why would you want to set me, or Owen, or any other individual up as the great judge of pianos? Only to knock us down? In such a market, with quality so high, giving consumers information about price, and otherwise letting them try out pianos and make their own judgments makes much more sense.
By the way, over the past few years, I have asked many people, yourself included, to give me a ranking of piano brands in terms of quality. Everyone ends up throwing up their hands and saying it's impossible, if for no other reason than the definition of "quality" itself is so elusive.
Yes, it's true that wholesale price information is far from perfect. However, with the categories so broad, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference in which brands are in which categories.
As for the words Iconic, Venerable, etc., I'm open to different words. Those were the best I could come up with to give the sentiments I was looking for. As for which brands are Iconic, I asked many dealers, including you, and I distinctly recall you agreeing with the list as published. In fact, I recall you specifically saying that Sauter does not belong in that list, even though its quality is just as high. As for Fazioli, Iconic does not necessarily imply the oldest (Venerable implies age). For various reasons, Fazioli is considered Iconic, in that it would probably be the flagship brand of any dealer that carried it. Although Steinway New York is certainly Iconic in comparison to most other brands, if a dealer carried every brand (which is my standard in doing these ratings), I believe that Bosendorfer, Bechstein, etc. would be positioned higher by the dealer than the New York Steinway. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're better, only that they carry more "prestige". Of course, reasonable people can disagree about which brands carry the most prestige, but I found that a surprising number of people I spoke with agreed with this list, regardless of which brands they carried.
Larry Fine
Author, The Piano Book
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656 |
Although Steinway New York is certainly Iconic in comparison to most other brands, Steinway, NY or Hamburg is iconic compared with all other brands by definition just like Rolex is the most iconic watch. I would say in the piano business the only other iconic name really is Yamaha, with perhaps Baldwin and maybe Bosendorfer, barely. Brands such as Steingraeber and Fazioli are elite, but certainly not iconic. lol....I know it is silly for me to fixate on this trivia, and anyone can use words in ways that are not their actual meanings, it is done all the time. I would say in the world of books that review pianos for consumers, The Piano Book is iconic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Steinway, NY or Hamburg is iconic compared with all other brands by definition just like Rolex is the most iconic watch. I would say in the piano business the only other iconic name really is Yamaha, with perhaps Baldwin and maybe Bosendorfer, barely. Brands such as Steingraeber and Fazioli are elite, but certainly not iconic. lol....I know it is silly for me to fixate on this trivia, and anyone can use words in ways that are not their actual meanings, it is done all the time. I would say in the world of books that review pianos for consumers, The Piano Book is iconic. Yes, we need a dictionary. Iconic: A type representing a class. When people think of hamburgers, they think of McDonald's. McDonald's is an iconic hamburger. When people think of pianos, they think of Steinway. An iconic thing doesn't have to be high quality, although it often is. Hostess Twinkies were often called iconic in headlines when they went bankrupt. Venerable: it means worth honoring. It is respected. It doesn't mean old at all, but old things are often venerable, so it has that association. All the pianos on the list are venerable, even Charles Walter. Distinguished: notably excellent, much better than the average bear; so that people notice the quality. Notable: worth paying attention to. This word is also often used in negative contexts as well, "It is notable how much crime increased during the 60s" When I look at the map of the pianos, it is painful to note how many of those pianos I don't have. Le sigh.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Incidentally, if I had infinite money I'll tell you which pianos I would have in my home (in no particular order):
C. Bechstein
Bösendorfer
Steingraeber & Söhne
Steinway & Sons
Schimmel
These pianos are not higher quality than the others on the list, but they each have something interesting I can hear that distinguishes them from other pianos. I would call them distinguished.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
As long as I'm posting, I might as add to the pile again.
I've found that dealers who stock these pianos don't in fact push one particular brand over the other. I've seen them push Steinway as better than Boston, or Petrof as better than Perzina, but the quality difference is quickly obvious to anyone who plays them.
When it comes to the truly venerable pianos (using the word in its true meaning, not the ranking in the venerable guide), piano salesmen are almost always happy to let me find my own preference. If I like the Yamaha C7X, they will tell me good things about that. Whatever piano I like, they will tell me good things about. It is an enjoyable experience.
Some piano salesmen will try to understand what I like, and give me suggestions to help me find things.
(Sometimes salespeople will direct me away from used pianos).
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
, piano salesmen are almost always happy to let me find my own preference. If it's in their own store, it only makes sense. If in another, the experience might quickly become somewhat different. Norbert
Last edited by Norbert; 03/30/17 01:12 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Since some people don't like the new names for the Performance Pianos groups, I suggest: Bubonic, Venereal, Extinguished, and Not Able
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/30/17 07:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Since some people don't like the new names for the Performance Pianos groups, I suggest: Bubonic, Venereal, Extinguished, and Not Able One of those names is very iconic!
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,566
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,566 |
Hello Larry, Steve, Owen and other contributors.
I hold fairly and appreciate that Larry and his team always try to accomplish the goals as set out. The brand information, the reviews, the articles continue to help consumers, offer insight, and sincerely bolster the publication's value.
The Map of the Market or "ratings", however, has not developed or progressed as a rational consumer tool. I feel it has gone the wrong way, despite good intentions.
I'm sure you put lots of thought, in some cases, agonized over little details of the presentation of the Map. Presently, I feel that most consumers looking at it will be lost, overwrought, or misunderstand the information presented. I'm thinking first and foremost about human behavior of buyers.
Honestly, since this chart requires so much explanation + a separate blog with more explanation...the information should not be in the form of a chart. In its current form, it is easier to misuse than use.
Taking the Map at face value, I find several comparative absurdities buried within. Taking a high level view, I find the power of the words used in the charts overpower the distinctions. The written explanation your blog article seem to try and take away that power, but that's like pouring warm water over an ice sculpture...there's no way that everyone at the party will have seen it in detail or recall it clearly when referring to it later.
Brand power vs. Quality becomes squishy at best, and the intended inclusive nature of The Piano Buyer may have led to this Map.
It is my belief that if I am going to criticize, I should offer constructive suggestions. In one option, the chart needs to go away in favor of a reasonable introduction explaining why a brand is included in a particular segment, followed by a list of brands in that segment.
For example:
Our highest category of pianos includes brands known and sought after by artists and venues of the highest caliber. Each has celebrated hall pianos and they offer equal quality for the smaller models in their lineup. These brands include.....
Our second highest category includes pianos of the same artist value as the first, but for reasons of brand power, stage presence or varied history, they fall below the highest group. These brands include...
etc.
All of the pianos in the consumer grade are marked by .... Brands in the highest category are noted for ...
This would emphasize your descriptions, reducing the need for a consumer to interpret a single word.
Another way to approach the Map would be to offer more than one chart. Offer one chart that actively addresses brand power in the market and spends at least a little time breaking down the few mega brands that offer multi-tiered lines under one name. The second Map would be more of a rating or ranking of quality based on some metric of landed quality as a product and instrument.
If I were trying to help consumers know where and what to look for, I'd address the elephants in the room, Steinway, Yamaha & Kawai as the most familiar and commonly recommended brands in recent years, include at least some breakdown of Yamaha & Kawai's lines, and they list the non-household name brands as competitors relative to those. This would serve to tell consumers...where else should I look? It still acknowledges certain brands as leaders, but lessens the constant problem with the current and recent Maps...did this popular brand get a bump in ratings because it is popular or "more established" or because it is better? Conversely, does this other brand actually deliver comparable quality to this higher rated brand, hindered in the ratings because it is less popular or for some reason I should know?
Thank you for your continued efforts to our industry, but please rethink the chart, the words, and perhaps your purpose in creating a Map while still calling it Ratings. While anyone can embrace or dismiss the information you present, the Map remains a centerpiece. Not just because of this most recent Map, I now dismiss the Ratings because of the comparative absurdities I find within.
Hopefully, Staff Picks and professional reviews can grow and be more prominent.
FYI, in the review of the Roland FP-90, the link to Stephen Fortner's videos is currently not working.
Disclosure: I advertise with The Piano Buyer's online site for our local market.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,559
7000 Post Club Member
|
|
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,559 |
I would like to reiterate something that has been mostly lost in all this other discussion of the newest Piano Buyer issue: For the first time in the publication’s history, we now feature in-depth video reviews of both acoustic and digital pianos by our professional reviewers! We hope you find these a useful enhancement to the text reviews, which we’ll continue to offer our readership. I am hoping the combined text + video format will continue to be something we do in the future, when possible.
Regarding the “Map of the Market†chart in the current issue, although I spent a good deal of time discussing it with the Piano Buyer staff (as we do each issue), the final, published version of the chart in the spring 2017 issue reflects almost none of my specific input. For the “Staff Picks†section, I contribute more to its content than any other member of the Piano Buyer team. Although I haven’t played every model, with only two exceptions I have played recently-made pianos of every single acoustic brand on the chart.
Someone posted links about Hamburg vs. New York Steinways, and I should note that some information posted in this thread is out of date. Sally Phillips wrote about the differences between these pianos in a recent Piano Buyer article that you can read in our archives. Sally regularly services both New York and Hamburg model B and D pianos made in the last 10 years - she knows of what she speaks. As a pianist, I tend to perceive a difference in the tonal aesthetic between these pianos and historically there’s been a difference in the level of prep work. Combined with a more even level of finished excellence in past decades probably contributes to the “edge†given to the Hamburg piano over the NY one in the ratings chart. Having said all that, most real pianists aren’t choosing based on a rating, they’re choosing based on what sounds and feels the best for their budget. I generally tend to prefer a well-prepped NY D to a Hamburg one, personally, though the differences between these pianos are becoming increasingly standardized in new production, and we absolutely cannot overlook the significant role the concert tech plays in the success of the piano.
Regarding the occasional direct or indirect personal attack here: I’ve been vacillating between staying the heck out of this discussion vs. addressing it because nobody’s actually characterized what I do accurately, and certain people have taken it upon themselves to impugn my credibility and motives, even though these people don’t know me, know nothing of my ability/background, and are speaking based on zero actual firsthand evidence (i.e. never met in person or heard me play a note). How I work at NAMM is actually conducive to trying pianos, because I’m there at the crack of dawn, annoying the security at the escalators to be among the first in Lounge 88 for 3 days of each show while others are sleeping off their indulgences of the prior evening’s manufacturer events.  The individual booths/rooms are easier to sample instruments, as company reps (who know me better than some of the dealers on this forum, apparently) now silence the rooms so I can play.  Of course, in the Yamaha/Bosendorfer premium room, it’s appointment-only now, so that’s easy.  Digital manufacturers are willing to send product directly to my home, since they recognize the value of real product reviews instead of the rehashed press releases we often read, masquerading as “reviewsâ€.
People forget that I also have visited factories, and I probably visit more dealers around the country annually than anyone except the company reps. When I make a recommendation for “Staff Picksâ€, it’s based on what I see at dealers, trade shows, conversations with other pianists and techs (including our other reviewers), my own notes from previous years of trying a particular model, not just 30 seconds of playing on a noisy Saturday afternoon at NAMM.  For example, adding the Perzina 175 grand to the newest “Staff Picks†was something I had considered 3-4 years ago, and confirmed by playing that model again at subsequent shows and finally adding it this year.  Dealers can write conspiracy theories about my product knowledge and decision making, but I’ve actually been to dealers and played pianos for (usually) every single brand they sell, sometimes several times in the past 5 years.  The notion that I would go visit factories all over the world (with manufacturers and distributors trying to pay my expenses — they offer to do this every year — in return for positive “spin†and additional positive articles/reviews, like we see on another website) raises serious ethical issues that could damage the presumption of objectivity that readers expect of our publication. Â
At the end of the day, I see the primary purpose of the publication as helping shoppers make sense of a sometimes intentionally difficult-to-decipher industry, and I hope that my efforts serve that goal first and foremost. If that ticks off a few dealers along the way, I’m sure there’s a tiny violin for sale somewhere at the pianosupplies.com store our benevolent Piano World forum ownership may be willing to sell you.
Kind regards,
Owen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
I would like to reiterate something that has been mostly lost in all this other discussion of the newest Piano Buyer issue: For the first time in the publication’s history, we now feature in-depth video reviews of both acoustic and digital pianos by our professional reviewers! We hope you find these a useful enhancement to the text reviews, which we’ll continue to offer our readership. I am hoping the combined text + video format will continue to be something we do in the future, when possible.
Regarding the “Map of the Market†chart in the current issue, although I spent a good deal of time discussing it with the Piano Buyer staff (as we do each issue), the final, published version of the chart in the spring 2017 issue reflects almost none of my specific input. For the “Staff Picks†section, I contribute more to its content than any other member of the Piano Buyer team. Although I haven’t played every model, with only two exceptions I have played recently-made pianos of every single acoustic brand on the chart.
Someone posted links about Hamburg vs. New York Steinways, and I should note that some information posted in this thread is out of date. Sally Phillips wrote about the differences between these pianos in a recent Piano Buyer article that you can read in our archives. Sally regularly services both New York and Hamburg model B and D pianos made in the last 10 years - she knows of what she speaks. As a pianist, I tend to perceive a difference in the tonal aesthetic between these pianos and historically there’s been a difference in the level of prep work. Combined with a more even level of finished excellence in past decades probably contributes to the “edge†given to the Hamburg piano over the NY one in the ratings chart. Having said all that, most real pianists aren’t choosing based on a rating, they’re choosing based on what sounds and feels the best for their budget. I generally tend to prefer a well-prepped NY D to a Hamburg one, personally, though the differences between these pianos are becoming increasingly standardized in new production, and we absolutely cannot overlook the significant role the concert tech plays in the success of the piano.
Regarding the occasional direct or indirect personal attack here: I’ve been vacillating between staying the heck out of this discussion vs. addressing it because nobody’s actually characterized what I do accurately, and certain people have taken it upon themselves to impugn my credibility and motives, even though these people don’t know me, know nothing of my ability/background, and are speaking based on zero actual firsthand evidence (i.e. never met in person or heard me play a note). How I work at NAMM is actually conducive to trying pianos, because I’m there at the crack of dawn, annoying the security at the escalators to be among the first in Lounge 88 for 3 days of each show while others are sleeping off their indulgences of the prior evening’s manufacturer events.  The individual booths/rooms are easier to sample instruments, as company reps (who know me better than some of the dealers on this forum, apparently) now silence the rooms so I can play.  Of course, in the Yamaha/Bosendorfer premium room, it’s appointment-only now, so that’s easy.  Digital manufacturers are willing to send product directly to my home, since they recognize the value of real product reviews instead of the rehashed press releases we often read, masquerading as “reviewsâ€.
People forget that I also have visited factories, and I probably visit more dealers around the country annually than anyone except the company reps. When I make a recommendation for “Staff Picksâ€, it’s based on what I see at dealers, trade shows, conversations with other pianists and techs (including our other reviewers), my own notes from previous years of trying a particular model, not just 30 seconds of playing on a noisy Saturday afternoon at NAMM.  For example, adding the Perzina 175 grand to the newest “Staff Picks†was something I had considered 3-4 years ago, and confirmed by playing that model again at subsequent shows and finally adding it this year.  Dealers can write conspiracy theories about my product knowledge and decision making, but I’ve actually been to dealers and played pianos for (usually) every single brand they sell, sometimes several times in the past 5 years.  The notion that I would go visit factories all over the world (with manufacturers and distributors trying to pay my expenses — they offer to do this every year — in return for positive “spin†and additional positive articles/reviews, like we see on another website) raises serious ethical issues that could damage the presumption of objectivity that readers expect of our publication. Â
At the end of the day, I see the primary purpose of the publication as helping shoppers make sense of a sometimes intentionally difficult-to-decipher industry, and I hope that my efforts serve that goal first and foremost. If that ticks off a few dealers along the way, I’m sure there’s a tiny violin for sale somewhere at the pianosupplies.com store our benevolent Piano World forum ownership may be willing to sell you.
Kind regards,
Owen Speaking for Larry and myself.....Well said Owen.
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 46 |
I would like to reiterate something that has been mostly lost in all this other discussion of the newest Piano Buyer issue: For the first time in the publication’s history, we now feature in-depth video reviews of both acoustic and digital pianos by our professional reviewers! We hope you find these a useful enhancement to the text reviews, which we’ll continue to offer our readership. I am hoping the combined text + video format will continue to be something we do in the future, when possible.
Regarding the “Map of the Market†chart in the current issue, although I spent a good deal of time discussing it with the Piano Buyer staff (as we do each issue), the final, published version of the chart in the spring 2017 issue reflects almost none of my specific input. For the “Staff Picks†section, I contribute more to its content than any other member of the Piano Buyer team. Although I haven’t played every model, with only two exceptions I have played recently-made pianos of every single acoustic brand on the chart.
Someone posted links about Hamburg vs. New York Steinways, and I should note that some information posted in this thread is out of date. Sally Phillips wrote about the differences between these pianos in a recent Piano Buyer article that you can read in our archives. Sally regularly services both New York and Hamburg model B and D pianos made in the last 10 years - she knows of what she speaks. As a pianist, I tend to perceive a difference in the tonal aesthetic between these pianos and historically there’s been a difference in the level of prep work. Combined with a more even level of finished excellence in past decades probably contributes to the “edge†given to the Hamburg piano over the NY one in the ratings chart. Having said all that, most real pianists aren’t choosing based on a rating, they’re choosing based on what sounds and feels the best for their budget. I generally tend to prefer a well-prepped NY D to a Hamburg one, personally, though the differences between these pianos are becoming increasingly standardized in new production, and we absolutely cannot overlook the significant role the concert tech plays in the success of the piano.
Regarding the occasional direct or indirect personal attack here: I’ve been vacillating between staying the heck out of this discussion vs. addressing it because nobody’s actually characterized what I do accurately, and certain people have taken it upon themselves to impugn my credibility and motives, even though these people don’t know me, know nothing of my ability/background, and are speaking based on zero actual firsthand evidence (i.e. never met in person or heard me play a note). How I work at NAMM is actually conducive to trying pianos, because I’m there at the crack of dawn, annoying the security at the escalators to be among the first in Lounge 88 for 3 days of each show while others are sleeping off their indulgences of the prior evening’s manufacturer events.  The individual booths/rooms are easier to sample instruments, as company reps (who know me better than some of the dealers on this forum, apparently) now silence the rooms so I can play.  Of course, in the Yamaha/Bosendorfer premium room, it’s appointment-only now, so that’s easy.  Digital manufacturers are willing to send product directly to my home, since they recognize the value of real product reviews instead of the rehashed press releases we often read, masquerading as “reviewsâ€.
People forget that I also have visited factories, and I probably visit more dealers around the country annually than anyone except the company reps. When I make a recommendation for “Staff Picksâ€, it’s based on what I see at dealers, trade shows, conversations with other pianists and techs (including our other reviewers), my own notes from previous years of trying a particular model, not just 30 seconds of playing on a noisy Saturday afternoon at NAMM.  For example, adding the Perzina 175 grand to the newest “Staff Picks†was something I had considered 3-4 years ago, and confirmed by playing that model again at subsequent shows and finally adding it this year.  Dealers can write conspiracy theories about my product knowledge and decision making, but I’ve actually been to dealers and played pianos for (usually) every single brand they sell, sometimes several times in the past 5 years.  The notion that I would go visit factories all over the world (with manufacturers and distributors trying to pay my expenses — they offer to do this every year — in return for positive “spin†and additional positive articles/reviews, like we see on another website) raises serious ethical issues that could damage the presumption of objectivity that readers expect of our publication. Â
At the end of the day, I see the primary purpose of the publication as helping shoppers make sense of a sometimes intentionally difficult-to-decipher industry, and I hope that my efforts serve that goal first and foremost. If that ticks off a few dealers along the way, I’m sure there’s a tiny violin for sale somewhere at the pianosupplies.com store our benevolent Piano World forum ownership may be willing to sell you.
Kind regards,
Owen Speaking for Larry and myself.....Well said Owen. I speak for nobody other than myself but I found it extremely useful when choosing my piano. So keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,621 |
It's interesting to note tat Europe, with the oldest tradition of piano making, has never seen the need to "rate" pianos. Nor has the American piano industry with literally hundreds of different makers at turn of century and after. If and when many of these makers went out of business over time, it had little to do with "ratings" nor did those who survived have anything to do with it either. This is not to criticize the rating effort but perhaps see it for a moment in some kind of historic perspective. Today we seem to have the need to be told by others what good and whats not, better or best. I know this may not be the intention but, at least for piano shoppers, it may somewhat come across this way. With all the dangers of being slightly derailed along the way. In my world of thinking "reading about the truth" may be an interesting activity [ I do lots...] but in the end we will have to find it all by ourselves. It's a challenge but can also be fun. Norbert
Last edited by Norbert; 03/30/17 10:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
Someone posted links about Hamburg vs. New York Steinways, and I should note that some information posted in this thread is out of date. Sally Phillips wrote about the differences between these pianos in a recent Piano Buyer article that you can read in our archives. Sally regularly services both New York and Hamburg model B and D pianos made in the last 10 years - she knows of what she speaks. Owen - that would be me.  I tried to find Ms. Phillips' article in the archives but was unsuccessful. Could you possibly provide a link? THANKS -
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Since some people don't like the new names for the Performance Pianos groups, I suggest: Bubonic, Venereal, Extinguished, and Not Able I like your sense of humor!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
Thank you for your continued efforts to our industry, but please rethink the chart, the words, and perhaps your purpose in creating a Map while still calling it Ratings. While anyone can embrace or dismiss the information you present, the Map remains a centerpiece. Not just because of this most recent Map, I now dismiss the Ratings because of the comparative absurdities I find within.
I think I know what "comparative absurdities" you are referring to, Sam, but could you give us a few examples?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
I think the new category names are a bit ill-conceived, but I think a bigger problem stems from trying to rank pianos linearly. When you get into the boutique brands, diminishing returns means that these pianos aren't so much better or lessor as they are simply different from one another.
If a dimension by which these brands were split up was by production numbers, then there's no doubt that NY Steinway would rate "iconic" (in the true sense of the word). Do any of the boutique, performance brands come close to Steinway's production numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Owen, I appreciate your even-keeled, objective commentary (no grandstanding or posturing). Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,559
7000 Post Club Member
|
|
7000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,559 |
Hi Carey-- I may have misspoke (and Sally might see this and chime in), I think it was the January 2015 issue of American Organist magazine, curiously... Thanks for checking on that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 698
500 Post Club Member
|
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 698 |
https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2576451/Searchpage/2/Main/176811/Words/S.+Phillips/Search/true/Re:_Do_Hamburg_D's_usually_sou.html#Post2576451
I think that will take you to an excerpt of my article.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,623
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,623 |
Owen,
I always look forward and enjoy reading your reviews and posts on PW. Great insight and knowledge. Keep it up.
Rich
Retired at the beach
Grotrian 192
Anton Rubinstein said about the piano: "You think it is one instrument? It is a hundred instruments!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2576451/Searchpage/2/Main/176811/Words/S.+Phillips/Search/true/Re:_Do_Hamburg_D's_usually_sou.html#Post2576451
I think that will take you to an excerpt of my article. THANK YOU !!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
It's interesting to note that in Europe, with the oldest tradition of piano making, has never seen the need to "rate" pianos. Nor has the American piano industry with literally hundreds of different makers at turn of century and after.
In the second half of the 19th and first part of the 20th century in both Europe and the U.S. there were major exhibitions of all kinds of products including pianos. Competition was fierce and often involved all kinds of chicanery like bribing of judges. Piano makers used these awards heavily in their advertising. Any of the books about the history of Steinway go into great lengths about these exhibitions. So I'm afraid your comment is historically inaccurate.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/31/17 09:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
I think the new category names are a bit ill-conceived, but I think a bigger problem stems from trying to rank pianos linearly. When you get into the boutique brands, diminishing returns means that these pianos aren't so much better or lesser as they are simply different from one another. Not sure which pianos you would classify as boutique, but I think many would disagree that there isn't a significant difference between the iconic and notable sub-tiers, for example. For adjacent sub-tiers one might argue the differences are very small and that wouldn't go against anything the authors of the list have said. If a dimension by which these brands were split up was by production numbers, then there's no doubt that NY Steinway would rate "iconic"(in the true sense of the word). Do any of the boutique, performance brands come close to Steinway's production numbers? Production numbers have nothing to do with the rankings, and I can't imagine why it should. So I don't know why you introduce the hypothetical idea of ranking pianos by production numbers. There are different interpretations of "iconic" so I don't think it's a good idea to use one's personal definition as a way of agreeing or disagreeing with the ratings.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/31/17 10:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
This is not to criticize the rating effort but perhaps see it for a moment in some kind of historic perspective. Today we seem to have the need to be told by others what good and whats not, better or best. As I explained in a previous post, the historical perspective you mention (in the context of saying ranking pianos is something new)is incorrect since in the late 19th and early 20th century there were numerous piano exhibitions that were judged with the results being very important for the piano makers. I fail to see what's so surprising about having piano rankings or why anyone would be offended by the idea. In today's society virtually every kind of goods and services are ranked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,422 |
https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2576451/Searchpage/2/Main/176811/Words/S.+Phillips/Search/true/Re:_Do_Hamburg_D's_usually_sou.html#Post2576451
I think that will take you to an excerpt of my article. Very good article, Sally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656
4000 Post Club Member
|
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,656 |
When you get into the boutique brands, diminishing returns means that these pianos aren't so much better or lessor as they are simply different from one another.
This is a common misconception with which I vehemently disagree. I would say what you are saying here applies to structural design and materials and to a certain extent workmanship, fit and finish, but in terms of performance, there are massive differences that somewhat experienced pianists understand very quickly. Just because a piano has a high retail price, an illustrious history, and beautiful materials, fit and finish does not guarantee the design is in the same league. IMNSHO there are some real "emperor has no clothes" pianos out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
Not sure which pianos you would classify as boutique In a nutshell, boutique brands are those with relatively low production numbers. If a dimension by which these brands were split up was by production numbers, then there's no doubt that NY Steinway would rate "iconic"(in the true sense of the word). Do any of the boutique, performance brands come close to Steinway's production numbers? Production numbers have nothing to do with the rankings, and I can't imagine why it should. So I don't know why you introduce the hypothetical idea of ranking pianos by production numbers. There are different interpretations of "iconic" so I don't think it's a good idea to use one's personal definition as a way of agreeing or disagreeing with the ratings. Production numbers absolutely have an impact on this, especially when you consider that one of the largest grouping criteria is price. For example, if I'm not mistaken, Steinway produces about 3000 pianos a year, and Fazioli produces about 100. That is a huge difference. If Fazioli produced an additional 2900 pianos a year, they would be languishing in showrooms and warehouses, and their prices would plummet (that's not my opinion; it's the law of supply and demand). They would also lose their mystique. I recall discussion here that some boutique brand's dealers are lucky to move five units a year. And some brands listed, although rated, are virtually impossible to find in the U.S. Steinway is producing in large volume, commanding a high price, and making their products available in most metro areas. Boutique brands aren't so easy to find. That makes Steinway iconic in my opinion. And when I say "in the true sense of the word," I mean it's true definition, not my "personal definition."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
When you get into the boutique brands, diminishing returns means that these pianos aren't so much better or lessor as they are simply different from one another.
This is a common misconception with which I vehemently disagree. I would say what you are saying here applies to structural design and materials and to a certain extent workmanship, fit and finish, but in terms of performance, there are massive differences that somewhat experienced pianists understand very quickly. I never said there aren't differences. I just mean that at some point they aren't so much qualitative as they are personal preference. If you give ten objective people a choice between a Bösendorfer and a Steingraeber, some will pick one and some will pick the other, based on their personal preferences. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Quite the contrary--they are just different, and the various differences appeal to some people and not to others. Just because a piano has a high retail price, an illustrious history, and beautiful materials, fit and finish does not guarantee the design is in the same league. IMNSHO there are some real "emperor has no clothes" pianos out there.
Agreed. I'm usually the guy saying that a quality piano can be had for much less money than some of the higher priced brands are asking (diminishing returns, etc). All other things being equal, any given brand can command a higher price if their stature--deserved or not--is more iconic... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
Not sure which pianos you would classify as boutique In a nutshell, boutique brands are those with relatively low production numbers. Then both Boesendorfer and Walter are boutique pianos in terms of grands and very few would say that Walter is near Boesendorfer in quality as you stated. If a dimension by which these brands were split up was by production numbers, then there's no doubt that NY Steinway would rate "iconic"(in the true sense of the word). Do any of the boutique, performance brands come close to Steinway's production numbers? Production numbers have nothing to do with the rankings, and I can't imagine why it should. So I don't know why you introduce the hypothetical idea of ranking pianos by production numbers. There are different interpretations of "iconic" so I don't think it's a good idea to use one's personal definition as a way of agreeing or disagreeing with the ratings. Production numbers absolutely have an impact on this, especially when you consider that one of the largest grouping criteria is price. For example, if I'm not mistaken, Steinway produces about 3000 pianos a year, and Fazioli produces about 100. That is a huge difference. If Fazioli produced an additional 2900 pianos a year, they would be languishing in showrooms and warehouses, and their prices would plummet (that's not my opinion; it's the law of supply and demand). They would also lose their mystique. I recall discussion here that some boutique brand's dealers are lucky to move five units a year. And some brands listed, although rated, are virtually impossible to find in the U.S. Steinway is producing in large volume, commanding a high price, and making their products available in most metro areas. Boutique brands aren't so easy to find. That makes Steinway iconic in my opinion. And when I say "in the true sense of the word," I mean it's true definition, not my "personal definition." First, to the best of my knowledge you are mistaken about NY Steinway and Fazioli numbers although I wouldn't argue that Fazioli is definitely boutique. As far as I know NY Steinway is more like 1500 these days and Fazioli is closer to 200, and Steinway production has decreased while Fazioli has increased. If production numbers were really related to rankings carrying your idea to its logical conclusion would mean the inexpensive Chinese pianos should be the highest rated pianos. Many would say Fazioli is so good that their price is "reasonable". But it's obvious not many can afford a Fazioli or Bosendorfer so they can't sell 1000s of pianos/year, and so I don't think your hypothetical is very relevant. Fazioli knows that they can't sell 1000s of piano every year and would never try to. I don't think any of the super expensive brands of any kind of item are produced in very large quantities, but I've never heard anyone use that as an argument that they are of lesser quality. I think the most important thing to remember is that there are several factors in the Performance ratings including cost, prestige, quality, history, the sub-tier names, etc. Focusing on only one of these will almost inevitably lead to some contradictions, but I don't think that approach is what the authors intended. If a particular piano seems rated too high or too low in the Performance tiers using one of those factors, then one should ask himself if one of the other factors might be the reason. For example, my guess is the Yamaha CFX is not rated higher(despite its high cost and seemingly very good receptions among pros)because it is so new to the market.
Last edited by pianoloverus; 03/31/17 08:58 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,793 |
First, I believe you are mistaken about NY Steinway and Fazioli numbers although I wouldn't argue that Fazioli is definitely boutique. As far as I know NY Steinway is more like 1500 these days and Fazioli is closer to 200. I don't doubt your numbers. In fact, before I posted earlier I had actually thought Faz was 300, so I double-checked so I wouldn't be too off base, and Wikipedia said 100. You say 200. If we split the difference, and call it 150, that's still a full order of magnitude less than your number for NY (and I assume Hamburg makes the other 1500, give or take). If production numbers were really related to rankings carrying your idea to its logical conclusion would mean the inexpensive Chinese pianos should be the highest rated pianos. No, that's not it's logical conclusion. How can higher production resulting in a lower price, and therefor a lower correlated quality bracket, make the brand with the absolute highest production numbers end up with the highest rating? By the same dynamic, they'd end up with a relatively low rating. Many would say Fazioli is so good that their price is "reasonable". But it's obvious not many can afford a Fazioli or Bosendorfer so they can't sell 1000s of pianos/year, and so I don't think your hypothetical is very relevant. Of course. Anyone who writes a check for a piano has reached the conclusion that it is worth the price paid. And, yes, if they want to sell more they'd have to cut prices in order to move more units. Steinway, on the other hand, is producing and selling many more pianos, and they are unapologetic and essentially unbudging on the price. No one else is pulling that off. Fazioli knows that they can't sell 1000s of piano every year and would never try to. I don't think any of the super expensive brands of any kind of item are produced in very large quantities, but I've never heard anyone use that as an argument that they are of lesser quality. I never said Fazioli was lessor quality. I said pianos in the highest brackets are all of good quality, and simply different from one anther. I also say that Steinway's sales volume, coupled with their level of quality, makes them "widely recognized and well-established," and "widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence" (which is literally the Webster's definition of iconic). I think the most important thing to remember is that there are several factors in the Performance ratings including cost, prestige, quality, the sub tiers, etc. Focusing on only one of these will almost inevitably lead to some contradictions. Agreed. There are many factors. Again, partly why I say a linear model to rate and relate all pianos is inadequate. I'm gonna go one further, assuming that I'll probably stir up the hornet's nest: Premium prices in the US piano market are all set relative to Steinway's prices! - Their sales volume is going to have the largest impact on the equilibrium of supply and demand of premium pianos.
- It's been noted here many times that many pianos can be had for less in their countries of origin. So why the premium price in the US? Because the price is set relative to Steinway.
- If people want but can't afford a Steinway, they buy whatever "lessor" piano they can afford.
- If people genuinely prefer a different make, for more (or less) money, they'll buy that (but you can bet it's price was set relative to Steinway).
Steinway--rightly or wrongly--enjoys a hegemony in the US market. They are the king, and all other prices are set relative to their market price.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 137
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 137 |
I see. Brands like Grotrian, Sauter, Schimmel(Konzert series) will never be iconic. They're obviously not made to please mediocrities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 137
Full Member
|
|
Full Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 137 |
Haha..for home using, that's simply more than enough. Incidentally, if I had infinite money I'll tell you which pianos I would have in my home (in no particular order):
C. Bechstein
Bösendorfer
Steingraeber & Söhne
Steinway & Sons
Schimmel
These pianos are not higher quality than the others on the list, but they each have something interesting I can hear that distinguishes them from other pianos. I would call them distinguished.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035 |
When you get into the boutique brands, diminishing returns means that these pianos aren't so much better or lessor as they are simply different from one another.
This is a common misconception with which I vehemently disagree. I would say what you are saying here applies to structural design and materials and to a certain extent workmanship, fit and finish, but in terms of performance, there are massive differences that somewhat experienced pianists understand very quickly. Just because a piano has a high retail price, an illustrious history, and beautiful materials, fit and finish does not guarantee the design is in the same league. IMNSHO there are some real "emperor has no clothes" pianos out there. I would like to hear examples of this, that might support your opinion. For me, I have my experiences playing different pianos by the same manufacturer side by side (Steingraeber), and clearly some designs (models), even with several replicas of the same model to try, were at a different plane of performance than others. The Steingraeber C was very good. Another other model, quite lacking. But you deal in these things, so perhaps you have better examples.
phacke
Steinway YM (1933)
...Working on:
J. S. Bach, Toccata (G minor) BWV 915
(and trying not to forget the other stuff I know)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,035 |
I see Blüthner in the Iconic range. How many grand pianos do they make a year these days? I visited their company showroom in Leipzig a few years back quite expecting to see "Iconic", however they were mostly focusing on electronic keyboards or their electronic/acoustic uprights. They did have one grand up against the window in the corner.
Thanks- So, does anybody have any data on how many grands Blüthner is making per year?
phacke
Steinway YM (1933)
...Working on:
J. S. Bach, Toccata (G minor) BWV 915
(and trying not to forget the other stuff I know)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,543 |
Haha..for home using, that's simply more than enough. Incidentally, if I had infinite money I'll tell you which pianos I would have in my home (in no particular order):
C. Bechstein
Bösendorfer
Steingraeber & Söhne
Steinway & Sons
Schimmel
These pianos are not higher quality than the others on the list, but they each have something interesting I can hear that distinguishes them from other pianos. I would call them distinguished. I assure you, they would all be well used. And I would be thinking about which to buy next.
Poetry is rhythm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 36,803 |
The article on selling a used piano in the latest Piano Buyer reminded me of the books in the "For Dummies" or "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series. For those who have read any of those books, I think their strongest points are their organization, clarity, and completeness. I have only read two "idiot's" books about investing and they have served me quite well for the last 20 years.
The PB article also made me think of the investing book that claims to put everything one needs to know on an index card(and then expand that in its chapters). There is a lot of useful info in a small number of pages in the PB article.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
The article on selling a used piano in the latest Piano Buyer reminded me of the books in the "For Dummies" or "Complete Idiot's Guide to" series. For those who have read any of those books, I think their strongest points are their organization, clarity, and completeness. I have only read two "idiot's" books about investing and they have served me quite well for the last 20 years.
The PB article also made me think of the investing book that claims to put everything one needs to know on an index card(and then expand that in its chapters). There is a lot of useful info in a small number of pages in the PB article.
I tried to be as complete as possible. I get a couple of dozen calls a week from people looking to sell pianos that have no market value or ones that their market value is less than the cost of hauling and tuning.
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation
www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center
Maryland/DC/No. VA
Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,391
Posts3,349,273
Members111,634
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
