Are Petrof, Charles Walter and/or Pramberger a more economical "equivalent" to a Bosendorfer?
Mike Brindleman
greatly entertained by the outrageous threads here that I've read over
the last few weeks. And in the midst of the entertaining chaos, I
noticed, several people mention the very high-priced 'Bosendorfer'.
Now, my question: Would any or all of the brands mentioned in my post
header, be 'the next best thing' to a Bosendorfer in terms of the
manufacturing processes, the tone and performance? I am basically
looking for a "poorer" man's 'Bosendorfer'.
Which of the mentioned brands fits that bill, the best?
Thanks in advance! :-)
Cheers,
Mike
M. Slater
>I am new to this piano newsgroup and I decided to post, after being
>greatly entertained by the outrageous threads here that I've read over
>the last few weeks. And in the midst of the entertaining chaos, I
>noticed, several people mention the very high-priced 'Bosendorfer'.
Hi Mike, welcome aboard. As you have correctly surmised, this is not the sedate
little newsgroup one might think it to be. In a nutshell, here is the answer to
your question:
Poor man's Bosendorfer = Steinway
Poor man's Steinway = Petrof.
Hope this helps!
Mark
sith'ch
"Mike Brindleman" <Play_It_...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:78dd91d9.02072...@posting.google.com...
I would be more interested in your answer to the question. How about going
and playing a well-tuned same-size properly-regulated example of each one
and tell us how much difference you perceive and how much that difference is
worth to you. You may find that you like a Walter better than a Bosendorfer.
Be aware that the sound of a piano when you are the performer can be quite
different from the sound when you are in the audience - a difference I have
particularly noted on a Bechstein that I often play.
I said "well-tuned same-size properly-regulated example" above because if a
piano is not properly tuned, regulated, and voiced it is not possible to
fairly judge it. Neither is it appropriate to compare pianos of markedly
different length and attribute much of the difference to brand quality. Any
5' 0" piano will sound markedly inferior to a 7' piano (if both are
well-tuned, regulated, and voiced).
Durability and maintainability are other issues, beyond the scope of the
question.
Pax
Tom Cumming
"Mike Brindleman" <Play_It_...@volcanomail.com> wrote in
message news:78dd91d9.02072...@posting.google.com...
FWIW, I played a Petrof upright for the first time in my grade 8 a
few weeks ago, and I was very impressed. Beautiful mellow tone,
smooth, even touch, easy to play very softly without notes
starting to dissapear completely, whilst still able to play loudly
without too much hard work. Only critisism was the soft pedal
appeared not to do anything, which may have been a maintenence
issue.
--
Tom Cumming
Mail to the reply address not checked very often.
If you want a quick reply, use this address *backwards*:
ku.oc.oohay@kugnimmuct
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002
Russ Parker
warmth of tone and responsiveness of the action.
While shopping, I looked at the vertical Walters but didn't have the
opportunity to play a grand --- the dealer said that he didn't keep Walter
grands in stock because the price approached Steinway (which he also sells).
I had a hard time finding Bostons and Kawais that were well tuned and
voiced. The Prambergers didn't impress me. I hear a lot of good things
about Estonia, but I didn't have an opportunity to play one. Of all the
pianos I played, both above and below my budget, it was clear that the
Petrof was the best fit. Knowing what I would have to spend to do better, I
don't feel that I "settled" for the Petrof.
Good luck. Let your ears and hands (in consultation with your wallet) tell
you what to buy.
Russ
pTooner
sedate
> little newsgroup one might think it to be. In a nutshell, here is the
answer to
> your question:
> Poor man's Bosendorfer = Steinway
> Poor man's Steinway = Petrof.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
> Mark
that disclaimer, I think very few people would agree with your ratings. I
would definitely put Steinway at least a major cut above Bosendorfer. At
least they don't go in for gimmicks like extra keys. Perhaps I could agree
with the Petrof as a "poor man's Bosendorfer". At least they are of the
same philosophy as to sounds.
In short, there aren't really "levels" of piano and if we try to create
them I'm sure we'll alienate lots of true believers. For instance, where
are you going to put Yamaha?
Gerry
M. Slater
> Perhaps I could agree
>with the Petrof as a "poor man's Bosendorfer". At least they are of the
>same philosophy as to sounds.> I
>would definitely put Steinway at least a major cut above Bosendorfer. At
>least they don't go in for gimmicks like extra keys.
I based my "ratings" on the fact that a Steinway costs tens of thousands of
dollars less than a Bosendorfer and a Petrof costs tens of thousands of dollars
less than a Steinway. Bosendorfer builds approximately 500 pianos a year.
Steinway builds between 3-4,000. It is surprising that Bosendorfers don't cost
more than they alreay do.
Mark
Larry
>grands in stock because the price approached Steinway (which he also sells).
Just for the information of it, the facts are that a Walter sells for about
half what the same sized Steinway does. The reason the guy doesn't stock them
is because Steinway doesn't like for them to be on the same sales floor with
their pianos. That's because the Walter will more than hold its own when
compared to the Steinway. Gets a little tough asking 50K for a piano when
there's a 25K piano sitting next to it that beats it. And you didn't "settle"
with the Petrof. It's a very nice piano.
Larry Fletcher
Pianos Inc
Atlanta GA
Dealer/technician
Doing the work of three men.....Larry, Curly, & Moe
Want to visit another piano related messageboard? Go to the piano discussion
group on my website:
Larry
>least they don't go in for gimmicks like extra keys.
Surely you jest. As for gimmicks, how about "accelerated action", or
"diaphramatic soundboard"........ those don't amount to anything more than a
gimmick. The extra keys aren't really the point on the Bosendorfer. It's the
extra width of the long end of the soundboard, and the extra long strings to
add sympathetic resonance to the bass.
>In short, there aren't really "levels" of piano and if we try to create
>them I'm sure we'll alienate lots of true believers.
Of course there are levels of pianos. Would you tell someone to go try a Pearl
River and a Bosendorfer, and tell them they're on the same level? Certainly
not.
>For instance, where are you going to put Yamaha?
Kmart?
Dave Andrews
>For instance, where are you going to put Yamaha?
Kmart?
======================================
Every once in awhile, Larry ...
Glad I had already swallowed my coffee.
lol
--
With All Due Respect,
Dave Andrews
D. W. Andrews Associates
Church Music System Specialists
"Two Hacks Working Out Of A Garage"
Disclaimer: If there are two ways to take my words,
always assume I was after the cheap laugh.
Mike Brindleman
thoughts before I make the plunge, would be appreciated. And again,
thanks in advance. :-)
Cheers,
Mike
"Tom Cumming" <rubbish...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<ahj54n$t0rej$1...@ID-105548.news.dfncis.de>...
pTooner
> I based my "ratings" on the fact that a Steinway costs tens of thousands
of
> dollars less than a Bosendorfer and a Petrof costs tens of thousands of
dollars
> less than a Steinway.
a good way, though.
Bosendorfer builds approximately 500 pianos a year.
> Steinway builds between 3-4,000. It is surprising that Bosendorfers don't
cost
> more than they alreay do.
It's more surprising to me that Bosendorfer can find 500 people a year
willing to pay what they charge. ;-)
Gerry
>
pTooner
> Surely you jest.
Don't call me Shirley!!
As for gimmicks, how about "accelerated action", or
> "diaphramatic soundboard"........ those don't amount to anything more than
a
> gimmick.
I don't think I could agree that accelerated action is a gimmick. If it
were every other manufacturer of grand pianos in the world wouldn't have
copied it. As to the diaphramatic soundboard, I must admit it sounds more
like a birth control device.
> >In short, there aren't really "levels" of piano and if we try to create
> >them I'm sure we'll alienate lots of true believers.
>
> Of course there are levels of pianos. Would you tell someone to go try a
Pearl
> River and a Bosendorfer, and tell them they're on the same level?
Certainly
> not.
Didn't I say that the whole level concept is flawed? I'd tell them that
here are two of the many brands out there.
>
> >For instance, where are you going to put Yamaha?
>
> Kmart?
>
Well, we're finally in agreement!! ;-))
Gerry
Larry
>
>Don't call me Shirley!!
I knew a guy named Shirley once. It was when I was in college. I started dating
his daughter, and she took me home with her for dinner once. I thought
"oboy.... I can't wait to see *this* worm"....... well.....Shirley was a
teamster............ I called him Shir....... "Yes Shir, now Shir".... "I've
only seen her wrists, Shir".........
>I don't think I could agree that accelerated action is a gimmick. If it
>were every other manufacturer of grand pianos in the world wouldn't have
>copied it.
I think the reason they didn't copy it is because it is such an obvious
gimmick.
>As to the diaphramatic soundboard, I must admit it sounds more
>like a birth control device.
Is *that* why they buzz?.. (just kidding) ;-)
>Didn't I say that the whole level concept is flawed? I'd tell them that
>here are two of the many brands out there.
Yes, but they are so obviously polar opposites. It's like finding DWE and
Einstein both standing in line.
:-)
Larry
>
>Kmart?
>======================================
>Every once in awhile, Larry ...
>
>Glad I had already swallowed my coffee.
>
>lol
>--
>With All Due Respect,
>Dave Andrews
There would have to be a Martha Stewart series. I assume you would take one of
the GA built queen anne consoles, add a color coordinated cloth seat and
matching doileys, a candle holder made out of dry macaroni and a crockery
flower pot, and a dish of pot pourri, package it all together and charge 15K
for it....... ;-)
Chris Aher
You have it backwards. The S&S "accelerated action" consisted of using
felt covered half-cylinders called balanced rail bearings in the place of
the normal felt punching at the balance rail. As far as I know, (although
I've been out of the business for 2 decades) other piano companies haven't
implemented even though the 1931 patent has long since expired and the
technology is now in the public domain. I never thought (and I regulated a
lot of S&S grand actions during the seventies) that it made any difference
one way or another. In other words, marketing BS.
As far as the "diaphramatic soundboard" is concerned, the technique of
tapering and arching a soundboard was standard practice for harpsichord
builders in the 17th & 18th centuries.
This is not to say that some of S&S grand basic scales and designs weren't
excellent. (particularly A3, B C & D) They were/are. Even when the
execution was less than perfect and the QA left a lot to be desired (late
60s & 70s) many (maybe even most) of the instruments could be turned into
fabulous instruments with the proper attention.
I remember one of the C&A techs commenting about the first Bosendorfer
Emperial to be used at Lincoln Center (about 1976 IIRC) "Its built like a
fine watch. Too bad its not build like a piano" Although it was meant as a
joke there was a small grain of truth there. When compared side by
side/note by note on stage with CD150 (the Alice Tully Hall house piano for
many years) the Bosendorfer seemed to come up slightly short in the tone &
projection department. (The action was fantastic though) The tenor section
sounded a little(but just a little) nasal and the upper treble was a tiny
bit thin in comparison. It should be noted that both instruments were in
absolutely top shape and had been meticulously cared by first rate techs ,
one of whom was best man at my wedding about 5 years later.
The reality of it is even though the two companies represented different
design and manufacturing philosophies, the differences were really a matter
of personal preference and it was really splitting hairs the say which one
was "best". It depended on your criteria. The quality of he craftsmanship
in the Bosendorfer was superior, the tone of the S&S was slightly better,
and the actions were about equal.
Regards,
Chris
pianoguy
> I don't think I could agree that accelerated action is a gimmick.
> If it were every other manufacturer of grand pianos in the world
> wouldn't have copied it.
Who copied it?
Split dowels with holes drilled in them and action cloth glued on
them for balance rail felt is all it is. I've never seen this in any other
piano.
--
John Inzer
pianoguy
return e-mail disabled
Ed Foote
John writes, inre the Steinway acclerated action:
>Split dowels with holes drilled in them and action cloth glued on
>them for balance rail felt is all it is. I've never seen this in any other
>piano.
Actually, the Steinway patent covers two things. the use of an arc for the
keys' bearing point and the location of the key leads as close to the balance
rail pin as possible.
The acceleration hasn't anything to do with making the note play faster, it
has to do with accelerating the hammer via an increasing geometry during the
keystroke. (the idea is that the arched fulcrum creates a longer moment arm
near the bottom of its travel than at the top).
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
Well-tempered CD's at Gasparo.com.
GSCD #332, "Beethoven In the Temperaments"
GSCD #344 . "Six Degrees of Tonality"
Caution, these CD's contain pure intervals and extensive liner notes!
pTooner
"Chris Aher" <ca...@eathlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ssn%8.14583$Qk6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Gerry,
> You have it backwards. The S&S "accelerated action" consisted of using
> felt covered half-cylinders called balanced rail bearings in the place of
> the normal felt punching at the balance rail.
Oops, I guess I was having a "senior moment" there. I had in mind the
original steinway invention of the repetition lever action. I thought (at
the time I was writing) that they called that the "accelerated action". I
looked up the reference, and you were of course right. I haven't dealt much
with the repair and tuning side of the business in several years.
As far as I know, (although
> As far as the "diaphramatic soundboard" is concerned, the technique of
> tapering and arching a soundboard was standard practice for harpsichord
> builders in the 17th & 18th centuries.
>
I don't really know about that, but the fact is it produces a better
soundboard - hardly advertising hype. Don't you agree? BTW, I was never a
Steinway dealer, I just like their instruments.
> This is not to say that some of S&S grand basic scales and designs
weren't
> excellent. (particularly A3, B C & D)
Interestingly, I think their best ever was the round tail A. It was the one
with the third bridge and had a sound in the tenor section that no one has
equaled since. This was built for a short time in the 1890's I believe and
I'd sure love to have a nice example today.
I clipped the rest of your post in the name of brevity, but I generally
agree that the Bosendorfers are well made, just not of the best in sound
quality. The truth is, all the concert sized pianos I've tried were
essentially hand built beautiful instruments. This even includes the
yamahas if you stay with their concert hall models which seem to have
absolutely nothing in common with their consumer products.
Gerry
pTooner
100 odd years ago. I had forgotten about the balance rail bearing things.
Gerry
"pianoguy" <oo...@doobie.com> wrote in message
news:xVn%8.401$GN4....@eagle.america.net...
Ed Foote
>Oops, I was thinking of the repetition lever action which they had patented
>100 odd years ago. I had forgotten about the balance rail bearing things.
The repetition lever, as we know it today, was invented by Erard, as part of
the "double-escapement" action.
pTooner
> The repetition lever, as we know it today, was invented by Erard, as
part of
> the "double-escapement" action.
> Regards,
> Ed Foote RPT
Well, Ed, you're rarely mistaken about these things, but while I will agree
from my dim memory that Sebastian ERard did invent something called the
"double-escapement" action which was sort of a fore-runner of the Herz-Erard
action. And I believe that action was popular in Europe in the mid 1800s.
(And I have never seen one, and can't speak knowledgeably about it)
However, I believe Henry Steinway Jr. was granted a patent for the
repetition action in 1857 which was modified by the patent given his father
the following year and this is the modern repetition lever action.
At least that's what I have been led to believe. I've been around a
long time, but not that long.
Gerry
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the
president,"
-- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents.
Radu Focshaner
>
> > The repetition lever, as we know it today, was invented by Erard, as
> part of
> > the "double-escapement" action.
> > Regards,
> > Ed Foote RPT
>
> Well, Ed, you're rarely mistaken about these things, but while I will agree
> from my dim memory that Sebastian ERard did invent something called the
> "double-escapement" action
1808 and 1820 : repetition action with double escapement
> However, I believe Henry Steinway Jr. was granted a patent for the
> repetition action in 1857 which was modified by the patent given his father
> the following year and this is the modern repetition lever action.
<http://www.steinway.com/html/tech/patents_01.html>
> Gerry
"If somebody has a bad heart, they can plug this jack in at night as
they go to bed and it will monitor their heart throughout the night.
And the next morning, when they wake up dead, there'll be a record."
-- Mark S. Fowler, FCC Chairman
Ed Foote
>However, I believe Henry Steinway Jr. was granted a patent for the
>repetition action in 1857 which was modified by the patent given his father
>the following year and this is the modern repetition lever action.
Greetings,
I don't think that is the "invention" of the repetition lever. Erard called
it the "balancier",(which is the name I was taught by B. Garlick).
I understood the Steinway patent to be a modification of Erard's idea, but
will have to see the pictures to know for sure.
Davey, the Pomposity Slayer
HEY!!!!:
Check Out the "Trio" Cable Channel tonight at 12 Midnight
Eastern Standard Time Tonight!!
GUESS WHO EVERYBODY!?
YEP: _*TORI*_ _*AMOS*_!!!!
And _*WOW*_!!
It is one helluva of a sexually-charged
Tori!! :o)~(o: Tori!!
Oui!! :o)~(o: Oui!!
Hot!! :o)~(o: Hot!!->....->Show!!
No Doubt!!,
David
AND IN OTHER RECENT
_*DAVEY*_ _*PIANO*_ _*NEWS*_!!
Well, Franklin, you say you have no problem with my "message", *but*
my "style" is too frenzied like
"heavy metal",
Eh mate!?
So basically, what you're saying is, "David, I like your 'message' *but*
'it needs a conservative haircut and
a new suit and tie' to 'fit-in' better
with the Usenet 'Spock-wannabe-Professor-wannabe' 'stiff-collar'
'tight-ass-anus'
sleepy virtual crowds
filled with bloody nauseous
gaggles of goober boob
geeks
and kooky-whack-curmudgeony
computer
freaks."
Is that about right!?
SORRY!! NO CAN DO!!
TOOL RULES!!
BUCK OWENS DROOLS!!
No Doubt!!,
David
P.S. You're down in Texas?!
And you're *NOT* a Bush supporter!?
My sympathies, fella. It is a good thing you have that Bosendorfer to
beautifully escape with (in the comfort of your
home)....escape....from....the Texas 'Yee-Haw' dim 'Bushy' bulbs!!
Oh wait, you are not escaping from them, really, because you are reading
these posts 'in-here' by "Larry and Tom and Andr*ws", etc., who *ALL*
write like
they were bloody-well-born
to live in Texas!!
Some place like,
Waco, or thereabouts,
perhaps, it *surely* seems to me,
would be a good place for these 'Ultra-Conservative-RMMP-Shirleys' to
start their "real-life-version" of 'this-here' ultra-right-wing piano
cult.
But hey, Franklin, now I know why, you prefer 'model airplane glue' as
opposed
to Tropical Zombies....as you'd surely
*need* that extra proverbial
'Sniff-Sniff-Kick in the Head'
to make it through the lonesome
nights as a liberal-leaning-fellow
down in Texas. 'Yee-Hee-Hee-Haw!!'
(--Hee Hee--)
Buh-Bye For Now!!
Piano Salutations to All!!
P.P.S. By the way, my musical tastes
are not 'heavy metal'....Maybe my
'political ranting/writing and comedy style' reaches that 'frenzied'
level at times, *perhaps*.
But pianistically/musically,
I play and sing and I am
*thoroughly* *into* melodic, dark and/or somewhat-dissonant and
energetic
but still *soothing* sounds
(the definitions of "dissonance", however, vary, and it is really in the
ear of the beholder--as are what constitutes 'orderly' or 'disorderly',
you see!?)
But, anyway, for the most part,
I just like unusual, clever sounds
and thoroughly original
but sometimes quite 'classical-SOUNDING' arrangements on my piano/keys
(playing-and-writing)
and on my lead and backing vocals comprised of my highly-personal and
intense, introspective lyric writing (which is quite-surprisingly
'brevity-rich') unlike my ranting which is another thoroughly different
animal and which I am purposely 'more-wordy' for a comedic, unusual
effect which lends itself well, to talk radio. Believe me!! Just ask
Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern, etc., etc., about that one. Because if
you are *NOT* long-winded, you tend to have a lot of dead-air-space!!
And in Rush's case, one may wish that were the case, *e-spe-cial-ly*.
Oui. Oui.
And, so anyways,
my
--*MUSICAL*--
--artistic-- --influences--
range from
Tori Amos to Paula Cole to
The Cure to Rickie Lee Jones
to Ben Folds to Billy Joel.
So, again, musically-speaking,
I --am--NOT--into--
'heavy metal or hardcore',
really, not much at all.
*Although*,
Billy Joel
his-very-self
*WAS* "into" heavy metal,
at least for one very scary
album
entitled 'Amplifier Fire'....
"Yeah!!, Go!!-Go!!-Go!!-GodzillyBilly!!!!" (--Ha!! Ha!!--)
Hey, that's kinda like:
"Bite!! Bite!! Oui!! Oui!!
DaveySharky!!"
"Can't you feel Davey circlin', newbie?, Can't you feel him schoolin'
around?....
You got Davey to the left....
Davey to the right....
And you're the only newbie....in town!!"
--DaveyFins--
"Davey Slayer Productions"
(c)2002 {All copyrights will be strictly enforced and protected. Contact
David at songwrit...@hotmail.com for any further *info* and//or
*requests*.}
Steve Bryson
> "Mike Brindleman" <Play_It_...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:78dd91d9.02072...@posting.google.com...
> > I am new to this piano newsgroup and I decided to post, after being
> > greatly entertained by the outrageous threads here that I've read over
> > the last few weeks. And in the midst of the entertaining chaos, I
> > noticed, several people mention the very high-priced 'Bosendorfer'.
> > Now, my question: Would any or all of the brands mentioned in my post
> > header, be 'the next best thing' to a Bosendorfer in terms of the
> > manufacturing processes, the tone and performance? I am basically
> > looking for a "poorer" man's 'Bosendorfer'.
> > Which of the mentioned brands fits that bill, the best?
Hi all - I have a 6'4" Petrov grand and I specifically chose it because
its sound was closer to Bosendorfer than any other piano in the store in
anything like that price range (I don't believe there was a Walter or a
Pramberger in the store and I have not tried them). I much prefer the
mellow sound of the Bosendorfer over the bright sound of Steinway. I
had no idea that Petrof existed and was not shopping for a piano at the
time, but I had just finished paying off my car and the Petrof payments
happened to be the same. I guess that qualifies me as a "poorer man"
:).
It is the sound that makes me very very happy. In fact I recently played
a friend's 9' Beckstein (~$120,000) and actually preferred the sound of
my Petrof! Other than the sound, though, you are getting what you pay
for: on my 1996 vintage Petrof, the action is much heavier and somewhat
less responsive than Bosendorfer/Beckstein/Steinway/etc. But I've
gotten used to that. As much as I love the piano, I admit dreaming of
someday trading up to a "real" Bosendorfer.
So if you know you prefer the Bosendorfer sound over the Steinway sound,
I'd say Petrof is an excellent option.
Good luck!
--
Steve Bryson
http://home.pacbell.net/stevepur/
Adam M. Dubin
wrote:
Bösendorfers are usually discounted from list price, much more so than
Steinway, so that they are in reality not terribly disparate. My Model
130 upright was about the same price (discounted) as a Steinway K52,
thought the list price was much, much more. I love it.
Adam
tim
mellow sound of the Bosendorfer over the bright sound of Steinway."
I am not questioning your personal taste (no right ro wrong) but that's a
first among all my performing friends. It's always the other way around.
"Steve Bryson" <stev...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:stevepur-9E2313...@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
Rodgersin
Steinway & Sons for close to 30 years.
The Pramberger pianos are excellent. I would say that they would be somewhat
closer to Bosendorfer than other pianos. However, I would definitely not
exclude Charles Walter. I have tuned and worked on both and found Walter to be
a superb piano as far as tone, touch, tuning stability and maintenance of the
action.
K Hutson
Piano Tech
Dave Andrews
<< Pramberger is a Young Chang Product. Pramberger was a design engneer with
Steinway & Sons for close to 30 years.
The Pramberger pianos are excellent. I would say that they would be somewhat
closer to Bosendorfer than other pianos. >>
Wow. YC has apparently made major strides in their instruments in the 10-1/2
months since I last played some Pramberger grands and verticals. I might have
chosen a different comparator than Bosendorfer. Weber comes to mind.
--
With All Due Respect,
Dave Andrews
Larry
>closer to Bosendorfer than other pianos.
I'm willing to accept them as having finally risen to a level that lets them
compete with Yamaha or Kawai, barely.... but to compare them in any way to a
Bosendorfer is quite a stretch. They are from totally different ends of the
spectrum.
KeybdWizrd
>Bösendorfers are usually discounted from list price, much more so than
>Steinway, so that they are in reality not terribly disparate. My Model
>130 upright was about the same price (discounted) as a Steinway K52,
>thought the list price was much, much more. I love it.
The Steinway dealer here in Chicago is quoting $22,800 for an ebony K52.
According to "The Bluebook of Pianos" an ebony Bosendorfer 130 sells for more
than $40,000. Are you talking about a nearly 50% discount, and when did you
purchase it?
Michael Walthius
THE MUSIC OF CYBERSPACE
http://www.mp3.com/walthius
Adam M. Dubin
wrote:
I purchased my 130 (in pyramid mahogany) from Kurt Saphir Pianos
(Wilmette, IL) in April, 2001, for about $1000 more than that K52
price, though I paid less with my trade-in. There was some promotion
going on at the time, not only with this dealer, and I'm not sure of
the usual discounts, but mine was almost 50%. However, Bösendorfer
verticals are very difficult to come by in this country, so
comparisons may in fact be academic. But the grands I know are well
discounted from list price. That Steinway dealer doesn't seem to
discount much, if at all (do any?).
Adam
Adam
Jory
news:rN009.634$1s4.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> I am not questioning your personal taste (no right ro wrong) but that's a
> first among all my performing friends. It's always the other way around.
Yep. My thought exactly! I own a Petrof III BTW. I have to have it voiced
twice a year to keep it mellow. I've never heard a Petrof that was mellower
than a Steinway. Those Renner hammers in the Petrof are as hard as rocks!
On-the-other-hand a 1996 Petrof would have a Tofa (Czech) action. Perhaps
the Tofa hammers were soft, but I don't think so.
Jory
H. Emmerson Meyers
mignon, whereas the Pramberger is more akin to a hamburger. Got it!
"KeybdWizrd" <keybd...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020727080834...@mb-mv.aol.com...