Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Spring 2017 Piano Buyer Now Online

THANK YOU !!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very good article, Sally.

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.

In a nutshell, boutique brands are those with relatively low production numbers.


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."

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.



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...

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.

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.

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).



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.


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.


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).


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.

I see. Brands like Grotrian, Sauter, Schimmel(Konzert series) will never be iconic. They're obviously not made to please mediocrities.

Haha..for home using, that's simply more than enough.

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.

So, does anybody have any data on how many grands Blüthner is making per year?

I assure you, they would all be well used.
And I would be thinking about which to buy next.

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.