Charles Walter vs Baldwin
Panama Jack
I am both a tuner and a musician. It seems that my last posting didn't make
it onto the newsgroup server. So, here goes again.
My most recent experience with Baldwin uprights has been mixed. They have
an upright grand which is absolutely the best vertical i have ever tuned.
They really tried to do something special and i think they succeeded.
Be careful which upright you buy from Baldwin.
Some of them have inferior actions. Not all Baldwin pianos are the same
when it comes to reliability or dependability.
As for the Charles Walter, what you are paying for is the beautiful
cabinetry.
If that's what you are after, fine. The action is middle grade, not bad but
not great either.
The string length is about average and they hold their tunings fairly well.
In my opinion, they are what we call a "Gingerbread house" in the music
business.
All flash but not much substance.
If I had to choose between the two instruments, and the Baldwin was one of
their better models, I would choose the Bladwin without question.
In response to another question you had, some piano dealers will dicker with
you to a certain extent.
But for the most part, they don't have muchhead room to begin with.
Pianos of the acoustic variety just don't sell like they once did.
Too many people find it easier to buy a top quality digital piano and leave
it at that.
I agree with you that the acoustic instrument is preferable for most
applications.
Write me directly if you would like to.
It would be a pleasure to talk to someone with that kind of interest.
Rick Clark
>As for the Charles Walter, what you are paying for is the beautiful
>cabinetry.
>If that's what you are after, fine. The action is middle grade, not bad but
>not great either.
>The string length is about average and they hold their tunings fairly well.
>In my opinion, they are what we call a "Gingerbread house" in the music
>business.
Nothing personal against Panama Jack, but I couldn't disagree with the
above more. It is true that Walter does put an above average amount of
money and energy into the cosmetic aspects, and that is *part* of what
you are paying for, but the "instrument" structures (action, frame,
soundboard, pinblock, etc) are absolutely of first rate quality. Tone
and feel are personal preference, but these pianos are a steal in
terms of comparable build quality today.
And if you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense to put cheap
cabinetry on such a fine piano, because most consumers would then have
the perception the whole piano is not well made. It's a nice thought
that they might spend a fortune on the guts while spending a pittance
on the cabinet, but it's probably unworkable from a marketing
standpoint.
Rick Clark
Richard Galassini
>cabinetry.
>If that's what you are after, fine. The action is middle grade, not bad but
>not great either.
>The string length is about average and they hold their tunings fairly well.
>In my opinion, they are what we call a "Gingerbread house" in the music
>business.
>All flash but not much substance.
>If I had to choose between the two instruments, and the Baldwin was one of
>their better models, I would choose the Bladwin without question.
>
Nice to speak again. How is Linda?
I really don't know how much experience you have with the Walter piano, but
they use a Herrberger Brooks action (same as S&S verticals)
Although the Baldwin 6000 is a very nice piano, I can't see comparing the rest
of the Baldwin line with Walter.
My 2 cents.
Richard Galassini
Cunningham Piano Co
Phila,. Pa.
1 (800) 394-1117
URL:http://www.hometown.aol.com/voce88/cunn.html
Larry
?
>They have
>an upright grand which is absolutely the best vertical i have ever tuned.
A tuner would not refer to a Baldwin 6000 as an "upright grand".
>As for the Charles Walter, what you are paying for is the beautiful
>cabinetry.
Sorry, Panama. I'm going to have to take you to task here. This is totally
incorrect, and makes it sound as if you have an agenda.
>The action is middle grade, not bad but
>not great either.
The Herrburger (Langer) action in the Walter is one of the finest built. It's
the same action in a Steinway vertical, and most people like to gush over
Steinways.
>The string length is about average and they hold their tunings fairly well.
You need to do your own homework before you start knocking a piano as hard as
you are knocking the Walter. You are so far off here it's not even funny. The
string length in the Walter 43" vertical is longer than the string length in a
52" Yamaha U3. And the tuning stability of a Walter is one of its strong
points. Rock solid.
>In my opinion, they are what we call a "Gingerbread house" in the music
>business.
>All flash but not much substance.
You need to get out more. If you think a Walter is all flash and no substance,
then I have to say you simply don't know much about pianos. Sorry.
>But for the most part, they don't have muchhead room to begin with.
>Pianos of the acoustic variety just don't sell like they once did.
Again, you have gone totally to the opposite side of the facts. There is all
*kinds* of "headroom" from the ridiculous "list price" game. And as far as not
selling "like they once did" - just when was that? The ones who are noticing a
drop in sales are the crap builders - Baldwin among them. The high end of the
market is growing by leaps and bounds. It seems the market is demanding
quality, and those who are giving it are selling everything they can build -
for example, Charles Walter. You know, the "all flash and no substance" piano.
>Write me directly if you would like to.
I smell a sales pitch brewing. Is there something you wish to tell this person
that you would not want to share with the rest of us? My advice to the original
poster - keep your hand on your wallet.
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician
Doing the work of three men.....Larry, Curly, & Moe
Http://www.pianosinc.net
fred...@my-deja.com
Hi Panama Jack,
Mars has already bought the Charles walter. I am a Baldwin lover too,
but there is no way the Baldwin verticals could compare to Charles
Walter verticals. In my humble opinion, Charles Walter wins in all
areas hands down. I think the 248 is the only model to compare to the
Walter line in any way. I wanted to buy a Baldwin Hamilton or 248
before I played a Charles walter 1500 studio piano. I admit I was
shocked at how much better the Charles Walter was in tone and quality.
Thanks,
Freddie
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
