Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Adult Beginner in Singapore: Buying First Piano

Almost all pianos are inherently unstable when settling into their new environment. You will probably need around 6 months - 1 year for the tuning to stabilize. Your environmental set up seem ok to me, but perhaps Digitus, who is more knowledgeable than me, can comment.

Your micro-climate control is fine. I just wanted to check if you were over-drying the piano by having the A/C and/or dehumidifier on for too long.

It could be that the loss of regulation that you perceive could in fact be the piano loosening up its ummm 'joints' to reach its natural state. Stick with it for a while. Even if there was no prep done on your SK it should have come out of the factory well-regulated already.

As for tuning stability, ALL new pianos will have tuning drift in the first few months to a year. New strings are stretching, and the sound board is slowly coming up to equilibrium with the RH in the environment. The drift will slow over time.

Changes in temperature and/or humidity can also affect the tuning very quickly. My piano drifts slightly out of tune if the air is too dry or the temperature too low, or both. But will drift back more or less into tune after the micro-climate returns to what it was when I first tuned the piano. It used to drive me nuts, but I've learned to live with it as 'normal' behaviour.

[deleted double post]

Dear WzKit,

>Wrong. It IS cheaper size for size. The 192cm Grotrian was quoted a price MUCH cheaper than the Delta (which is actually smaller). You can always call Jason and ask.

>Wzkit, why should I know about the Sauter dealer prior to my purchase of the SK? I started with a lower budget, and subsequently focused upon a number of makes/models which fitted the budget. As my research continued, my budget grew (significantly). I never knew the Sauter existed in Singapore, and only knew about it from Digitus when we were discussing about techs in Singapore (after my SK arrived). I did google for Sauters in Singapore, and what I got was this:

http://www.sauter.com.sg/

…and some other irrelevant websites, but no news on a Sauter dealer.

I heard about your move up 20 storeys(?), but given the lack of information on the dealer for Sauters in Singapore, went on wondering if you had imported it yourself. On hindsight, I think I should have PM you for information. But given my results from googling for “Sauter”, “sauter piano Singapore,” or “Sauter Singapore,” my (mis)understanding was there wasn’t such a dealer in Singapore. At least that was my understanding at that time.

And please avoid the ad hominem. You do not have to question my integrity based upon my assertion that I had done my research; I know I had. You are not obliged to believe me, but it was you who started/insisted on having this series of posts in this thread. If you have doubts concerning the veracity of my statements, why do you persist in writing/replying to my posts?

Or is there an axe to grind which I had missed somewhere along the line?

I’m really baffled by your assertions here. Why should our surrounding third world countries – with grossly differing economies – be used as a comparison with a first world country like Singapore with regard to piano prices?

How would you argue that Singapore is “relatively undeveloped”?

If that is so, shouldn’t USA be comparing piano prices with Mexico, Puerto Rico, or the North Pole?

Why then should Singaporeans be evaluating piano prices by comparing it with prices in, say, Cambodia or Vietnam?

Maybe you have good reasons for your bare assertions?

>You missed the point. The lack of time isn’t, but the lack of information is. As I have written, “there is no guarantee that information would become available EVEN with prolonged, exhaustive, painstaking and intensive research of any amount of time.” So even when you laud your in-depth research and time spent in doing such research, it is indeed a moot point. So what if you spend so much time in research? You may not get anything back in return.

The law of the jungle is no excuse for jacking-up piano prices. This is clearly an “is-ought” fallacy often emphasized by Hume. The law of the jungle explains WHY the prices are jacked up, but it doesn’t mean it ought to be the case.

That is why I say that the underlying meta-ethical principle is more important than any economic justification one can conjure up to explain why the price is so high/low. Conscientious business personals would not take advantage of the circumstances/situation/economy to make an unfair profit in the expense of business ethics.

One’s economics training may furnish us with some reasons as to WHY the price is thus, but you commit the “is-ought” fallacy when you claim that this is why is OUGHT TO BE so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)

At best, economic reasons are ignoratio elenchi when it comes to business ethics and price fixing.

>What has this to do with whether the price is reasonable/unreasonable?

>Without any data, this is at best mere speculation. I beg to differ.

>Your entire thesis is this: it’s the law of the jungle, and there is no such thing as to whether a piano price is reasonable or not.

Here I am addressing the meta-ethical issues relating to piano pricing: that there is such a concept as a reasonably priced piano, and that there is such a thing as an exorbitant/unreasonable pricing. Although you can justify any (exorbitant) price based upon economic considerations from the perspective of the dealer, for all practical purposes, any consumer can tell you whether a piano (or a dozen of eggs for that matter) is reasonably priced based upon certain factors which I have reiterated in my above posts.

If you deny that there is such a concept of a “reasonable” price, than the word “reasonable” loses its meaning as well. After all, there’s no such thing as an unreasonable price; it’s the law of the jungle!

If the word “reasonable” means neither reasonable nor unreasonable, why are you debating me on whether the price of a piano is reasonable/unreasonable? Isn’t that a self-defeating argument?

So given an exorbitant pricing, one is unjustified to claim that the price is unreasonable. One has to admit that this MUST BE a reasonable price. Take it or leave it.

So two billion dollars for a Hailun upright, based upon fictitious/hypothetical economic scenario, must be a reasonable price. Take it or leave it.

The economy might explain WHY the price is so, but does it then mean it ought to be so? We consumers can still make a value judgment – is this price reasonable or unreasonable?

I wrote previously:

A price can be judged as being reasonable/unreasonable based upon:

-The objective MSRP one can acquire from the manufacturer;
-Selling price of similar makes/models in other countries of similar economy;
-The price offered considering the amount of warranty, service and prep given to your piano.

If we have to accept whatever price that comes our way as being “reasonable,” why then did you bother to bargain for a “better” price? Why, the word “better” has no meaning in this context. Since the price is ALREADY “reasonable”, why is there a “better” or more “reasonable” price for you then? Isn’t this again a self-defeating position to take?

You related previously:

>Why would that be an “unreasonable” request? Since any piano price is dependent upon the law of the jungle (and such prices are always reasonable), perhaps your friend is taking laws into her own hands (which is part of the law of the jungle as well!). Why would a lower price be unreasonable since all prices of pianos are, in fact, reasonable – be they higher or lower? Calling your friend’s request “unreasonable” is making a value judgment, which you deny exists in the laws of the jungle of piano business.

>Here and elsewhere, you seem to imply that, if a model sells well (in this case the SK), then the price of that model will gradually increase.

Do I get you right here?

But here you wrote:

>I did not choose to ignore your post. You argued previously (in prior posts and above quotation) that, if a model sells well, the laws of the jungle would allow a price hike in that particular model of piano i.e.

P = If a model sells well (there is demand), price would appreciate. (your proposition)

That is the point I’m making with the C series. I am not comparing the C series with the SK in ANY manner.

I am simply saying that, since the C series sells well (and I dare say BETTER than even SKs), how do we explain the lack of price increment for Yamaha C series pianos? If dealers are obliged to increase piano prices if sales are good (according to the laws of the jungle), why do C series remain in the same price range year after year in Singapore?

I have no doubt that SKs hold a sweet spot in terms of price/performance ratio. But the issue here is whether there is a reasonable/unreasonable price for a particular model. Having considerable room for maneuver here (in price increment) doesn’t mean that the price OUGHT to be jacked up, which is then perceived as an unreasonable price. Your reasons explains why the price of SKs have increased so much, but it doesn’t mean that it ought to be increased by so much. Making a statement concerning price “reasonableness” is a value judgment, and values are an inherent aspect of humanity just as beauty and virtues are.

>There isn’t a guarantee, but there is such a thing as a price being reasonable or not.

If not, asking the dealer to set the price at $0 cannot be judged as unreasonable; after all, aren’t there no such thing as a reasonable/unreasonable price (as argued by you)?

>That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

>I am spending an “inordinate” amount of time responding to your lengthy replies/posts; please get this right. You can backtrack a few pages on this thread to peruse your constant/persistent response to my posts, and only on mine. Honestly, page 70 shows that you appeared out of nowhere and started focusing on my posts in this thread, which led to this “inordinate” amount of time spent in replies.

Besides, I am a strong advocate of free speech.

>I can’t answer you specifically because this is at best a non sequitur. I had purchased an SK (not other models). Hypothetically, if the dealer is using Fine’s price (even if it’s to his advantage), I would – based upon similar reasons – judge the price as being reasonable provided that the following is considered …

(Repeated)A price can be judged as being reasonable/unreasonable based upon:

-The objective MSRP one can acquire from the manufacturer;
-Selling price of similar makes/models in other countries of similar economy;
-The price offered considering the amount of warranty, service and prep given to your piano.

>I wouldn’t.

You can also dismiss Larry Fine’s book as irrelevant, but as far as piano buyers are concerned, they do make VALUE judgments based upon information such as those offered in Fine’s book.

Let’s face it: if there is really no such thing as an unreasonable pricing, and we all practiced buying/selling based merely upon your proposed “laws of the jungle,” then why do buyers like yourself bargain for a “better” price?

The price IS already reasonable.

Why bargain then?

Wow, long post! Cool down, ppp. Sit back and enjoy a piece I fall in love with recently...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w052PHJAN2U&feature=related

Well then, I got quoted a price much higher. It either shows (a) lack of consistency in pricing even outside of Kawais, or (b)my bargaining skills are poor, or (c) I hadn't even started bargaining.

Either way, it suggests that the law of the jungle remains the modus operandi in this market. Each man, buyer or seller tries to get the best price he can get!

Again you miss the point. I never mentioned that the Singapore ECONOMY was underdeveloped. I did mention however that the Singapore PIANO MARKET is underdeveloped relative to the US, which is not dissimilar to the piano markets in many of the neighbouring markets.

Whether these neighbouring markets are third world economies as you assert, is besides the point, because what matters is the state of the PIANO MARKET as distinct from the ECONOMY. If you have read enough of the forums here (which I presume you had if you did your homework), you would realise that even in many first world Northeast Asian economies, the piano market is relatively underdeveloped as well.

To equate per capita GDP with the sophistication and breadth of the piano market is a grossly overly simplistic assertion at best.

>

Turning your own argument on its head, likewise where's your data to differ from this? Is this merely your own bare assertion so that you can wrest the best deal for yourself?

In the first place, I had never argued that whether a price is "justified" SOLELY from a dealer's perspective. Please read my earlier posts to correct this misperception.

Economics 101 will tell you that the market clearing price is one that BOTH the DEALER and the CONSUMER can agree upon. If the price the dealer charges is exorbitant, the consumer will not stand for it, and will go somewhere else. Of course the dealer will try to charge the highest price that the consumer will accept. If for some imperceptible reason, a Hailun can actually sell for $2bn, then that is the market clearing price by defintion. Obviously the fact that people are actually are paying for that suggests that this price is (for some strange reason) still a market clearing price!

>

Did you not get it? I'm surprised!

My very simple reasoning is that the C series and SK are competing in 2 different market segments. In its respective segment the C series is ocnisdered expensive, while the SK is considered cheap even after the price increase.

Obviously this means given the laws of the jungle, that the Yamaha cannot jack up the price of the C series without losing market share,(as opposed to absolute numbers of sales - obviously the lower priced Yamaha C-Hailun-Kawai RX segment is larger than the higher priced SK-Yamaha S-German piano segment, and even if Yamaha C series was losing market share in its respective segment, absolute numbers of Yamaha C3 sales would still likely be larger than for the SK3).
The converse is true of the Shigeru Kawais.

Really?

I refer to this initial thread
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/24459.html

In it, Mr. Kwan had clearly mentioned.
"I made an offer to sell to PPP a brand new Estonia 190 air-freight from the manufacturer, delivered to him with standard warranty and free service at SGD45,000. If you compare this to the USD37,945 quoted in Larry Fine's Annual Supplement (2008 - 2009), according to tanjinjack, you would know that it is a good deal. Those who think Estonia pianos are getting more expensive in Singapore should explain how they arrive at that notion. Singaporeans are discerning enough to know what the market price is: they do their research and they would not pay more than what is reasonable -- whatever the product, whatever the brand. We are not wallowing in money, as Norbert suggests. At SGD45,000 my profit margin is very minimal."

It is clear that Mr. Kwan had shown you his cost structure. In this case however, were you merely trying to use the internet and Fine's 30% discount to your advantage as a means to force the price down to a level that would have made him a loss? How, may I ask you, is this reasonable or "fair" price?

Moreover, I also find it VERY interesting that you had actually made this statement at the start of the thread,

" I felt the SK3's pricing is very attractive though ... (compared with the price in other countries and the L190 price in S'pore). "

It seems that you had made a massive U turn from your previous assertions about how attractive the SK price was.

Reading your threads, all I can conclude is that you simply wanted to have your cake and eat it too - the law of the jungle applying, except only in favour of the consumer. In doing so, you appeared to be using the Internet as a bargaining tool and use Fine's 30% discount to your advantage...even if it might not have been your intention to do so.

To conclude on a more constructive note, I would urge you to forget the sour grapes. The SK is a good piano at a competitive price in comparison to its direct competition (Yamaha S, etc). Airing your grievances so publicly online, and moreover in the language and tone that you use, is unlikely to inspire much good faith on the part of the dealers, or get you better service from them.

Double post deleted

don't spoil ppp motive

Standing aside reading, i sense ppp is trying to broadcast a message, challenging the dealer, eventually hoping for the ultimate ...

Which is ... "ok, i'll refund the piano".
"Take the $$ back, go buy another piano".

nice try .... hehe


Weak argument, just pivoting on the service, eventhough its a great piano.
No piano is perfect and stays perfect.
Even if it's 5% out of regulation, don't let it stop producing music.


I especially admire Wzkit playing ability on the Steinway upright that time when i met you, at a certain place.
**The main point is the music flow out of the piano so beautifully; however the piano itself to me is only 60% regulated. Hammers were worn ...

What i learnt from that moment is, it is the pianist 90% of the time, the ability to compensate and overcome all the different key pressures, to produce an even tone output! Kudos!!

PPP,

If you paid your SK3 with your Master Card, it would be a different story:
Bought SK3: $45K
Playing SK3 everyday: priceless !

And, if you are still feeling 'over paid', maybe your new year resolution: replace SK3 ..

Wow...that was direct...but well put!
Exactly. He's got a good piano and now his job is to make the best of it.

Thanks for the kind comments. The piano didn't feel all that bad honestly, although quite muffled. The bass was fantastic and inspiring. I played with more strength and energy than I usually do that day

Regards

Dear Snoopycar,

Snoopycar, you don’t even know me, so please do not pretend that you know my motives/intentions.

I had told/written to the dealer what I hoped for – a proper prep/regulation. Not a replacement for the piano.

I have even written to Kawai Japan and asked if they would prep/regulate my piano.

So was that given?

You are not even making sense here.

Did you read my posts? Or are you just taking pot shots at me?

[quoteWhat i learnt from that moment is, it is the pianist 90% of the time, the ability to compensate and overcome all the different key pressures, to produce an even tone output! Kudos!![/quote]

I see, so we should purchase the lower end and poorly prep pianos to prove that we can produce an “even tone” with 60% worn out hammers?

Bossie,

It's more than 45K.

Dear WzKit,

Well, thanks for your input again …

Wzkit, you don’t seem to even understand the issue at hand. You are saying WHY a price is thus quoted, but I am making a value judgment here, and am arguing if it OUGHT to be thus quoted.

Still trying to push for a blatant logical fallacy here? If you haven’t, read the “is-ought” fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

I would see the reason in your arguments if you would cease those logical fallacies.

I didn’t miss the point here; you seem to rip my words out of context. I wrote in CONTEXT of the piano issue we were discussing, and presume you do know that context within which we were talking.

Firstly, you are making bare assertions which you do not even attempt to prove (at least show some evidence). It is hard to conceive that the piano market here in Singapore is underdeveloped and is comparable to the piano market in, say, neighboring Batam.

You add the following to confound the issue:

It is secondly a straw man to assert that I “equate” whatever you claimed above; setting up straw men and making bare assertions is all you can furnish here to convince us that a price is reasonable? When did I make such an “equation?”

Thirdly, and most important, you are still making an is-ought fallacy.

You are justifying WHY the price is quoted as such (using various economic reasons and knowledge you have). I understand that the prevailing laws of the jungle (as I have reiterated ad nauseam in my previous post) would allow a dealer to quote whatever exorbitant price one desires. But should it OUGHT to be that price then? Is this price therefore reasonable in context of meta-ethical principles which I was arguing for?

I am arguing about what the price OUGHT to be. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Fourthly, you attempt to isolate the piano market from the general economic conditions of the country, and demand that I compare the piano market with that of Vietnam or Thailand. How could you justify that? Wouldn’t the piano market be affected by the country’s say overhead costs, rent, transport, tax etc?

Why would the piano market here be more comparable to Batam and Vietnam than with the US (where Larry Fine’s book is about)?

Another bare assertion of yours?

What argument? An argument consists of at least a proposition and a conclusion. The argument you mentioned was YOURS. I only wrote, “Without any data, this is at best mere speculation. I beg to differ.”

So I denied your jolly attempt to make another one of your bare assertions to convince ignorant buyers that whatever price the dealer quotes is ALWAYS reasonable.

Did I say “solely” from the dealer’s perspective? Another straw man of yours?

Logic 101 would tell you AGAIN and AGAIN that we are arguing if a price is REASONABLE considering the overheads, costs etc (which I had reiterated ad nauseam ad infinitum). The ignorant buyer can agree on an exorbitant price that the dealer had quoted (like myself), but does this make the price any more/less reasonable?

I say it again for your benefit: Logic 101 would tell you that this is an IS-OUGHT FALLACY. What the price IS doesn’t mean that the price OUGHT to be that way.

Did you not get it? I'm surprised too!

I repeat: I am NOT comparing the C series with the SK.

I am merely debunking your proposition that P, where:

P = If a model sells well (there is demand), price would appreciate. (your proposition)

Putting it simply: C series sells well; there’s no price increase. So your proposition that P is fallacious (no matter what counter-examples you try to furnish).

Your proposition that P isn’t true for the Yamaha pianos.

And the rest of your argument following the above quote is irrelevant to what I’m trying to say/present.

Were you there when Mr Kwan talked with me? (I hate to drag the man in, but you leave me with no choice).

You are taking my words out of context here.

You are assuming that what Mr Kwan showed is reliable. I have only met him once, and based upon Larry Fine’s relative pricing between the SK and Estonia 190, the Estonia should be cheaper than the SK3. It wasn’t; therefore I figured that the cost structure Mr Kwan showed might not be bible truths.

Get it?

I am not so naïve as to accept whatever the dealer claims; Mr Kwan only wrote figures on a piece of paper to explain his cost structure (with no supporting documents for many figures).

For example, he claimed that it took several thousands of dollars to bring in a piano (transport fees excluding tax and other fees). I called up piano importers and found out that it costs much less for pianos to be imported. Perhaps the cost is true for him, but I have my doubts.

WzKit, you are being unfair if you refuse to consider what I wrote in my previous posts in this thread.

I said again and again: I only knew certain things AFTER I purchased the SK3 (which I have repeated several times elsewhere). For example, I didn’t know that the other high-ends pianos were sold at prices similar or even cheaper than US prices (as quoted by Fine). Considering “relative pricing” between different models of pianos and Fines research, I found out that the Grotrian, for example, was well-priced compared to the SKs. The Estonia 190, on the other hand, was expensive compared to the SK3 (you can check Fine’s book to see the relative pricing).

My quote above needs definition:

“compared with the price in other countries” referred to PM on prices of SKs in Canada, which was much higher. This wasn’t based upon Larry Fine’s prices, which referred to prices in the US.

WzKit, after committing logical fallacies repeatedly, you now attempt an ad hominem by asserting that I’m using “the Internet as a bargaining tool.”

What bargaining tool? What cake? A slander like this wouldn’t help further this discussion any manner.

I had purchased a piano at (I perceive) a very high price, and I’m lamenting the fact that I made an impetuous decision. You knew what the price of the SK3 was when YOU were shopping for a piano, and I couldn’t justify that kind of price increment (in the range of 10-15K) in merely three years.

Secondly, the internet is used here (and all my lengthy posts) in response to YOUR constant ad hominem attacks on my character. Much of my postings were in response to your posts, not to make any bargains!

Besides, consumer laws in Singapore does not allow for any change of purchase agreements AFTER a purchase is made.

But what can I say? When one couldn’t reason logically, one has to hit below the belt and make bare assertions/ad hominems against another.

Why can’t I share my buying experiences with others who have interacted with me? After all, for you, the price quoted (even for ignorant buyers) is always reasonable based upon your law of the jungle.

Now here I am making that law of the jungle (which you laud) available to the public so that they can make a VALUE judgment for themselves.

I understand now; so we buyers should keep mum whenever we perceive certain issues pertaining to our purchase, even when it is negative in nature. Should we only write about positive ones?

Is that the whole objective of your posts?

And what “good service” in the first place are you talking about? The one year full warranty or the three free tunings?

I never denied that the SK3 is an EXCELLENT piano; just that I felt the price (for the lack of MPA visit, lack of the ten years full warranty, and the lack of piano prep prior to purchase) was high. You know that, don’t you?

Wow! Look who’s talking here!

Read the last few pages, and see who IS the one who started attacking the other, WzKit.

Besides, my tone/language is in response to YOUR tone/language.

Perhaps the other piano importers also showed you "supporting documents" as well?

Perhaps you can quote the specific numbers you were given to substantiate your point?

Since you have chosen to resort to simplistic arguments (e.g.third world vs first world, C3 vs SK3), and completely ignore the other points I have made, and insisting on "data", where may I ask, is your data?

What gave you any basis to believe their words versus his? Or did you just choose to believe their words because it suited your case at that point in time?



Interesting again that you now choose to change your tack, after having been exposed. Your inconsistency isn't helping your case either.

But wait...all that is not relevant, is it?

After all, weren't you comparing with Fine's US prices in the first place? Why is Canada being dragged in all of a sudden? Have the goal posts been shifted, or widened?

Those who have been observing your posts since the day you joined these forums can judge for themselves your intentions and your motives.

Snoopycar really hit the nail on the head with this one.

You can't have your cake and eat it too Trying to argue/bargain solely on the basis of what YOU define as "reasonable", is not going to inspire good faith on the part of anyone else - dealers or otherwise. Complaining endlessly when you think you get a poor deal does not help your case either

Put simply, from my observation, your style and approach on this forums - even before my appearance, as many here can attest - will win you few friends. More likely than not, in the process of making a purchase, it will likely get a you a bad deal rather than a good one.

Next time, spend more time and effort doing your research, be more respectful of the opinions of others, learn a bit of humility, and win over more friends in the process. Perhaps you could spend time learning how to manipulate your instrument better as well. Rather than complaining about the sour grapes, be it regarding the piano, the service, the price etc.

Learn a lesson from this and get smarter in the process.

I rest my case.

WzKit,

You were the one making “the point” and asking ME about the hypothetical scenario IF a dealer would show me supporting documents/cost structure.

I never demanded such documents from my dealer.

YOU named Mr Kwan in this discussion, which led to my statement about supporting documents. At least remember what you asked in the previous posts.

I did NOT resort to simplistic arguments; you have obviously not understood/not tried to understand all my posts thus far. I clarified those points I made, and it is clear that my arguments are not how you caricatured them to be.

I am not even asking you for data; I’m asking you to think logically.

And it is exactly why these forums exist; data is not easily available, hence we shouldn’t stultify posters from posting their “data” in this forum.

And data for what? Haven’t I told you the “data”? One year full warranty, no MPA visit, no dealer prep (only tuning prior delivery) for a price much higher than the counterparts in the US.

What motives/intentions?

Can you conjure out something more factual than making speculations and ad hominems against my character?

Or do you have an axe to grind with me?

Well, it is not based upon what “I” define as reasonable.

I’ll let other buyers (who takes the time to read this forum) decide if a price on a piano which is significantly higher than that in the US - less the MPA visit which is INCLUDED in the LOWER US price, LESS the 10 years full warranty which is INCLUDED in the LOWER US price (compared to 1 year full warranty), LESS the dealer piano preparation which is INCLUDED in the lower US price – is reasonable at all.

I bet buyers can make a value judgment for themselves despite your denial that there is anything such as a reasonable/unreasonable piano price. Your much touted “law of the jungle” will not change the fact that, for buyers, there is such a concept as a reasonable pricing based upon price comparison, service provided, product offered etc.

And if you are honest, haven’t you read several threads on whether a price being offered is “reasonable” or not? So what are these potential buyers making?

A VALUE judgment.

I’m not complaining “endlessly” about my dealer; I’m replying to your endless tirades and posts [smile and giggle].

So I suppose – according to your reasoning - it would help my case if I kept mum?

People should KNOW that Kawai US offers ten years full warranty, a free MPA visit, plus dealer prep for a piano price LOWER than that in Singapore.

Why are you so offended by this fact? Should I keep mum about this?

Given the excellent customer support and deals from Kawai US, that is why I mentioned before that I would consider getting an SK7 if I were in the US.

Oh, well! Now you heard me play the piano in your dreams?

And you probably know me better than the pantheon of gods out there – motives, time taken for research and all?

I too rest my case.

Further reply to WzKit’s edited post:

When did I/How did I change my tack?

Kindly enlighten us here.

What inconsistency?

Canada is being “dragged” in after you quoted my words from a post MONTHS ago referring to Canadian prices.

What has this to do with the arguments at hand? Are you running out of valid arguments?

I compared US prices BECAUSE Fines’ book was based upon US prices. I do not have an authoritative book on Canadian (or the North Pole’s) prices if that is what you’re asking.

Is that too difficult for you to understand?

My “style and approach” which you detest is only reserved for your posts which utilize the exact same “style and approach” which you detest. In other words, I am responding to your animosity and perennial attacks on my character in your posts, and has NOTHING to do with how I usually posts with forumers who pay some respect to the opinions of others.

And this is how YOU feel simply because we are crossing swords. Who else did I cross swords with in this thread?

Ppp,
I am going to repeat a very simple question here.
You claim that Mr. Kwan's freight charges were likely inflated based on discussions with other piano importers.
What are these charges? What gave you the basis to believe their words versus Mr. Kwan's?
This is in relation to the above point about what if the dealer showed you his cost structure, and whether you would insist on a lower price even if it would result him making a loss.
Thank you.

I refer to this post from Christmas Eve, before I came into this thread.
And the subsequent response
Here was a newbie poster trying to make an innocent simple enquiry, and then you responded in a tad aggressive and heated manner, even if well intentioned.

The poster's subsequent response, as well as that from snoopycar and others, is clear enough that your style and approach does not sit down well with others.

Period.

The shipment price per se is an objective price range.

Say, price to ship an elephant from Singapore to Batam is $X (plus/minus a small amount)

Ceteris paribus, the cost of shipment alone cannot be so far from the quotations ANYONE can acquire from import companies/shipment companies.

Relative piano pricing (comparison of prices of Estonia 190 and Sk3 in other countries) also helped me decide.

Further note (since you had rested your case):

YOU SHOULD KNOW that my dealer is the SOLE distributor of SK to our neighboring countries like indonesia/vietnam etc.

Why then did you insist that I compare the price of SK with these neighboring countries?

Does this make any sense?

Thank you.

(Disclaimer: I have high regard for Mr Kwan as a committed technician. Please try to keep him out of this argument if you insist on continuing).

I might also add that you did not even have the courtesy to at least acknowledge my PM to you on recommended techs (dated Jan 1st), which you had previously asked for in this post dated on the same day.



Given your lack of even a simple, polite acknowledgement to my PM, it could only leave me with the impression is that you weren't truly interested in making the best of the situation.

Rather perhaps Snoopycar's explanation of your motive hit the nail on the head.

Or simply a testament of your style and approach.