Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum The price of a Perzina? Essex? Any new upright?

Welcome to pianoworld, Rolf's!

It has been quite common in the past to have mysterious 'brand new' forum users from the Netherlands praise Perzina in their first and almost last post and then disappear.

Would you mind sharing with us what your relationship is to Ron Bol and Perzina? Your prices seem to be a bit different to what the pianos are actually selling for in Amsterdam. Are these prices before or after negotiation?

incomplete information...will repost

The modern Perzina is a Chinese piano. It is made in Yantai, China. The Perzina company is heavily invested in China, having built its own factory in Yantai. The Perzina company is not manufacturing any piano or piano parts in any other country in the world.

In response to the claim of Eurpean supervision of each batch of pianos, as of earlier this year Perzina reported in this forum that the factory in Yantai was running smoothly without on-site technical supervision from Europe.

It is difficult to say which parts of a piano are "vital to the sound" and which are not. For example, the only claimed Swiss 'component' of the Perzina is the polyester used in finishing the cabinets and cases. Ordinarily, one would not think of polyester as a component at all. In terms of German components, Perzina has used Roslau wire, Degen bass strings, and (on some pianos) Renner actions. I am unaware of any Perzina component that comes from France.

The 90% claim is a reference to Perzina's own "European Standard of Quality" (ESQ), a descriptive standard created by Perzina itself and used exclusively by Perzina to assert the 90% claim. The standard is not used by any other manufacturer. To be completely fair, Perzina is not alone in creating a quality seal of approval that is not a recognized standard and is used solely to congratulate itself. There are others. Seiler and Petrof come to mind.

Perzina is not alone in attempting to build high- quality pianos in China while downplaying its Chinese origins and emphasizing its European character. It would be unfair to single Perzina out for this practice. Perzina's particular "German heritage" is somewhat suspect however since the claim is based on ownership of a piece of land in Lenzen, Germany where it has never manufactured any piano.

My own reaction to the quoted-from post was identical to the Journey's reaction. The post is reminiscent of those of members bluespower and ladylover (to name but two). It is always difficult to be sure when someone is spinning or has been spun.

The bottom line is that Perzina pianos, particularly the verticals, have been praised by many influential piano professionals and consumers. A recent thread has mentioned that Perzina has now introduced a new generation of grands. Favorable comments were also made about these. Despite the unfortunate marketing hype and any distortions that result from it, consumers should focus on the pianos and the retailers who prepare them for sale. Perhaps in 5, 10, or 20 years the piano industry will not find a need to obscure the origins of pianos from China with assorted heritage claims.

Facts mentioned in this post can be checked out here in the 12th post on this page.
http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/22148/2.html

'touché' Turandot. Enjoyed the proper use of a foil.

Dear Amalia: I am so sorry to have polluted your post be causing others to respond to my enthusiasm for Perzina. Forgive me. I hope someone will give you all the answers you are looking for.

And to others who feel the urge to reply to my posts: don't waste your time nor cause further pollution to Amalia's post.

Dear Journey and Turandot: From your reactions I understand that you consider previous posts to be nothing more than promotional talk. You are entitled to your that opinion.

My relation to the selling company Bol is that they have sold me a piano in February 2008. No further connections. My enthusiasm for this brand comes from the fact that it took me six months of intensive search to find a piano with this feel and sound.

If you find that you should further investigate my identity as a real person do send me a private message and include your mail address so we can have contact regarding this matter outside this forum. And for the record: I have also posted my positive experiences with the silent system by PianoDisc on these forums and NO, I don't have any ties to that company either.

Turandot, is appears that you have done research on Perzina. I did not. Thanks for making this clear and mentioning the fact that in 2008 there was NO supervision by the Dutch company.

Regarding your question about the frensh contribution 'my source' lists they produce the veneer.

The prices I have mentioned are taken from the company's euro price list 2007 (February 1st). I took an avarage price for the 122 model that comes in six versions all black polish. For the 129 model I should have mentioned 5,500 for the black polish instead of 5,700 (magahony).

Oh, and Turandot, I enjoyed reading your 'bottom line' text. Let's hope no one mistakes that for "promotional talk".

Rolf's,

I can't speak for Journey. In my case, I react to those posts that announce that Perzina Chinese pianos are different from other Chinese pianos in that they are not Chinese pianos at all.

Lots of European and Asian piano makers are heavily invested in China. Those makers are also using imported components to make hybrid or 'international' pianos.

The thread that I referenced in my post began with a US retailer's contention that:

"Perzina’s main plant in Lenzen Germany has a technical staff that oversees design and production in China. The components in all Perzina pianos are 90% European thus earning the European Standard of Quality."

At that time that particular retailer was advertising Perzina pianos as European pianos on the home page of his website. Now he is advertising them as "European-designed". I think that's an important distinction, as is the distinction between a "main plant" and an unused parcel of land.

A lot of members have said good things about their first-hand experience with Perzina pianos. I don't consider that to be promotional talk. First-hand owner experience is a valuable resource for anyone shopping, certainly more useful than marketing hype.

Sorry if my post rubbed you the wrong way, but facts are facts whether they are pleasant or unpleasant.

An Essex or Perzina or Brodmann by any other name is still a Chinese built piano with a load of mostly irrelevant malarkey about design heritage. If people buy a Perzina (or insert other brand) because they like the way it feels and sounds and looks and they think it is a good price and it will last and they don't mind profiting from the exploitation of repressed workers in high carbon-footprint, earth-raping supply chains in China, then they should buy one. If they are buying one because of marketing-speak alluding to tenuous design links to a major brand, or, worse because of false statements about non-existent European factories, non-existent European supervision or patently false percentages of European raw materials in the build (or e.g. talking about one European action in the brochures but basing the price lists on inferior Chinese ones), or in general being led to believe that they are getting a deal which is too good to believe, well, that is another matter altogether IMO.

I think the Perzinas are nice enough pianos without having to tell tall tales. In comparison it would be interesting to see what kind of success Essex would have in the market if they were not riding the coattails of Steinway.

Kudos to the Journey...very well put, sir. It's so tiresome reading all these glowing reviews about the piano-shaped junk that's coming out of China and other places that rely on using well-established, and often defunct, recognizable brand names as their come-on. You're so right about the Essex/Steinway tie-in, as well.
The true test of a good piano is its ability to not only play and sound good when new but, to provide reliable musical service over a long period of time.
Eventually a good piano will need to be re-built and that will extend its lifetime for many years more of solid service(if the job's done right, of course).
It's hard to imagine a (insert your favorite "facsimile" brand here) meeting those above requirements.

Journey,

I left this question for you on this thread a few days ago. Perhaps you had a speaking engagement at the Hague and missed it.

Assuming that western consumers would like to nudge China's labor market toward the eminently fair and democratic Western-style free-for-all among labor, management, and worker benefit providers, what consumer behavior would you suggest that they adopt?

You have great catchphrases to go with the foot-stomping rhetoric, but, as you well know, this is complex problem (of which pianos are only a token example). China cannot leave a small footprint on anything due to its sheer mass. Simply shaking a stick at it with rousing rhetoric is not constructive.

Just don't read these reviews. If you know intuitively that any product that fits that profile is sure to be junk, there is no reason to read about it, is there?

In general, the nudging, at least in the US and Western Europe, is towards moving labor markets to more resemble those in China rather than vice versa. Each year America actually resembles Colombia more than Canada: a politically-connected rich-getting-richer-elite putting the squeeze on the rest of the country.

The deck is stacked against the consumer who wants to buy with their conscience or wants their purchase to have a positive long term impact on local piano businesses. The Chinese labor market is rigged, the currency exchange rate is rigged, the trading conditions don't take into account the real costs of income loss when GNP is forever traded for trade deficits. Most competing piano manufacturing countries and companies are being put under unrelenting pressure (Yamaha putting plants to sleep) or put out of business (insert name of American or German co) thereby decreasing alternative options. There are apparently great values to be had from this macro-economic situation, so why fight it and not just ride the wave and buy a Chinese piano on the cheap?

Consumers will generally consume in ways in which they anticipate experiencing desired benefits both emotional and rational. Often I hear more rational arguments for buying Chinese ("it is cheaper") rather than emotional ones ("I have always dreamed of owning a Hailun one day"). Pianos are unusual big ticket purchases that (should) last a generation or lifetime. If one assumes a useful life of 35 years for a piano, then the difference in cost per year of use between a Chinese home sized grand piano (that might not offer a comparable ownership experience or long life) and for example a M&H is tiny indeed and can be well worth it for consumers who want maximum emotional and rational benefits. Although, the "a piano is an investment" line promoted by Steinway won't pass the test of a real financial investment, buying a piano from one's own country can be a long-term investment in ones' own country.

Journey, the difficulty now is the absence of a coherent strategy which takes long term political and social consequences into account.

The Republican message is simple: the market will solve it. Currently this message is being broadcast by the global economy/open border wing of the Republican party. Demos don't seem to have a clue - or even a coherent identity, as far as I can tell. Combine the absence of a competing paradigm with concentration of mass media ownership and TV's Talking Heads parroting the free trade mantra and the result is that Joe Lunchbucket doesn't realize that the world doesn't have to run this way.

As others have said, "Fair trade, not free trade" - with "fair" taking social and political consequences into account.

I guess Ron Bol is the best great hope of the Netherlands then.

Journey,

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Although your parallels are provocative, I can see a lot of your astute thinking in your approach. I don't buy the "long-term investment in one's country" idea completely though.

Like I said earlier, pianos are a token example that doesn't fit the paradigm all that well. It's obvious that Chinese are building pianos first and foremost to cater to an increasing demand for Western musical instruments among a home population with an ever-broadening set of cultural interests. Thus the reasons for the Chinese piano are quite different from the reasons why GI Joe playsets are manufactured in China to be sold in a country whose leading manufacturing industry is armaments and munitions.

Add to this the fact that US piano manufacturers (and European) have run up the white flag and surrendered successively-higher pricepoints, in some cases attempting to cash in on their retreat by contracting with the victors for sub-lines. The one US manufacturer that offers a piano of its own manufacture anywhere close to an entry-level pricepoint doesn't seem to care much about having a market presence or promoting what it does.

Although this forum is deeply invested in the minute differences between esoteric brands, the folklore of wooded highlands that are home to the world's finest spruce, and fabled craftsmen whose hands contain the secrets of their grandfathers, for most musicians and music students, things are simple -- give me an instrument that offers me a chance to make music and doesn't put me in debt. There is a primacy of music over musical instrument among working musicians of limited means. There is not such a primacy of MY country over foreign countries.

One could say that when Joe Lunchbucket buys a car from his home country, he is making a long-term investment in that country's future. However, one could just as easily say that he is making an endorsement of complacency, product mediocrity, and corporate bloat.

I'll agree with you completely that we in the US are getting the products that we collectively deserve, just as we are getting the politicians, artists, and mass media that we collectively deserve. I just don't think that this is the result of "repressed" Chinese workers being given steady employment while being exploited "in high carbon-footprint, earth-raping supply chains in China". The finger that we point in the US needs to be pointed at ourselves, our own work ethic, our cultural values, our media, our politicians and our own failling institutions.

Yes, we can only hope that enough people will put their thinking caps back on after scratching their heads about being taken by the giant Ponzi scheme that the "free" financial markets inflicted upon us all and that the political will will exist to break through this disingenuous religious dogma of claiming to believe in magically mystical and benevolent market forces.

Markets and market gaming are one of the most efficient methods of (self) organisation and a requirement for a modern, vital economy. However, without ground rules and effective regulation we all wind up serving the markets (and their inside-trading, self-enriching, game-playing, pyramid-building masters) instead of the markets serving us.

Letting people like Paulson pay themselves $600 million without supervision or regulation and without creating anything of value leading ultimately as expected to the burst of the bubble and collapse of economies worldwide and then giving him carte blanche and keys to the economy to offer billions in no-strings-attached bailout money to the same Bonus Bozo crooks is an amazing thing to have witnessed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04lewiseinhorn.html?em

If we managed Little League baseball the way we manage our economy, there would be no requirement to follow the rules, no umpires or only umpires that sell wins to games to the highest bidder, no walking when beaned, no restrictions on concealed weapons or assault, $100 bribes to coaches for kids to get to bat, etc. No whining when kids are maimed or hit over the head with a bat or tackled with force when stealing a base before the game is called. Why don't we do this? Because we don't care about having a "free" game, but want the benefits that a controlled, disciplined game can bring its participants and their families.

IMO the problem is the absence of a alternative paradigm. When Demos are busy offering even larger tax cuts than do the Republicans, there's not much hope that that paradigm will come from elected representatives.

The current situation is made first and foremost politically survivable through the effect of making cheap consumer goods available (and still purchasable either with credit or funny money of tax decreases) for the masses who hope to be able to buy their happiness. For the majority of citizens, the existence of cheap shopping baskets at Wal*Mart, cheap hotdogs at HiLo and an evening of telly filled with richly entertaining advertisements and titillatingly hyped 'news' of the latest offensive war on whomever we are told we are supposed to hate today, are enough to sell their soul to whomever is in power.

The challenge is how does one move a country which is essentially a rigged free for all "everything is for sale and everyone has their price" market that only allows (the illusion of) a little democracy into a country that is a rational democracy that in turn sets the rules for the market to work in a way that serves the long term interests of its citizens.

The transition would require an almost insurmountable culture change from "me" to "we", major election reform, grass roots engagement, shared sacrifice, and most importantly, actively fighting against the interests of those who have made themselves billionaires while having their puppets both swindle us a second time with billions in handouts and eliminate Constitutional rights and protections to ensure that they can keep their power. Sometimes the next step in evolution is only possible when starting with an "R". Given the unlikelihood of this happening without an appropriate catalyst, a truly devastating Great Depression-The Sequel might be the best thing that could happen to the world.

After reading all this, it makes me think of the famous line in Blazing Saddles when Mongo proclaims that he is just a pawn in the game of life. In this case, of course, it would be a personified Perzina, which is the unwitting product of a carbon-footprint-corrupt, worker-exploited system designed to make materialistic Americans only think they're happy because they can now afford a piano.

Of course, if they could buy an M&H or S&S made by properly-paid American workers via a 40 year loan @ 1% per annum, then they could be truly happy because they would not only be investing in America, but they'd have an instrument of which they could be proud.

No offense, fellas, but I see this as being a tad bit simplistic. I'm not sure those Chinese workers who were making a fraction of what they're now making in the piano factory think they're exploited pawns, although I certainly do agree that we've got a carbon footprint problem that is going to be tough to solve because of our innate human greed.

Now, I wonder if our OP, Amalia, is still reading this thread or if she's decided to take up playing the guitar instead ...

Caz, if we can agree that the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs is neither a good thing nor inevitable, then it is not simplistic to state that the essential problem is absence of an alternate paradigm. To be workable long term, such a paradigm could not ignore international trade. However when I graduated from Berkeley in '67, international trade accounted for c.4% of GNP. That suggests that we could be more self-sufficient, if we so chose.

IMO "simplistic" is a more apt term for the current paradigm which posits the current situation - our economy being run for the convenience of corporations - as being inevitable.

There is no market in any absolute sense; there is, however, political economy.

FVLad,

The loss of manufacturing and services is a troubling, complicated issue that ultimately has to do with balancing the standard of living on a global scale so that there's no incentive to ship things globally.

Think of the economic imbalance associated with shipping something like a piano that weights 300 to 800 pounds half way around the globe because it's too expensive to make here. Yet it happens regularly.

Until that imbalance is resolved, our country must compete by building value-added products and providing intelligent services that cannot be provided overseas at a lower price. Telecommunications has really complicated the situation by making it possible for more and more of these value-added services to be done overseas.

Hence, we not only loose blue collar jobs, but white collar as well. Heck, it's not just cheaper to have pianos made in China. It's cheaper to fly to somewhere like India and have a coronary bypass or similarly expensive operation. Who knows? Our health care system may start doing this on a major scale as a way to save money.

Furthermore, it's not just big business who does this. My part-time web design business is now international. My SEO and graphics design is done in India, while I do the overall design, maintain the code, write the web page content, and manage the process here.

For better or worse, we're now in a global economy. If the imbalance gets too severe, however, we'll slit our own throats by not having enough people here earning significant incomes to buy the products and services being made or provided outside the country at lower costs. Eventually if that does happen, our standard of living will drop along with salaries and then those jobs will migrate back here.

In short, we're looking at a problem that over the long-term is self-correcting, although there's no telling how much disruption and pain will take place in the interim.

The Caz posted, You've posted re the basis on which we ultimately disagree. Yes we are in a global economy, no it is not self-correcting. The self-correction aspect is today's dominant paradigm. It's complete nonsense. Unregulated markets do no self-correct, they persist until they self-destruct. That's why we need to approach "the market" from a long term point of view, taking into account the social costs of the current paradigm. There is no market in any absolute, inevitable sense and there most certainly is no self-correcting market. There is, however, political economy.

Fogvillelad:

Markets should be used to serve us, we shouldn't be used to serve markets.