A Steinway is not a Mercedes and a Kawai is not a Honda. Rather, Steinway is a Rolex and Kawai is an Omega

The other day I read an article written by Larry Fine relating Cars to Pianos so that one could better understand the rating system he uses. I personally feel that it doesn’t capture the quality/ uniqueness of the instruments in question.
In my country a Mercedes benz is considered a good, reliable and luxury vehicle. It certainly isn’t the pinnacle of driving excellence, not by a long shot. Honda is also considered a good, reliable vehicle and certain models are luxury. The problem with vehicles in my opinion is exactly the problem with pianos. We place them in the Japanese/ European/ American rating system rather than rating the instruments on its own merits. Sure Mr Fine places the Shigeru with other tier 1(Mercedes type) instruments and that’s awesome but for the rest….

Rolex is a great watch brand. They sell every watch they make, and believe me they make a lot of watches every year. Omega is considered a close second to Rolex but many models sell for half the price. Why is that? After all, James Bond wears an omega. And if anyone knows about style and quality it must be James Bond.  Yes I know Rolex use 416l steel and omega 316. Rolex pioneered so many innovations in the wristwatch world the list goes on forever but Omega made the most accurate wristwatch ever made eclipsing Patek, Zenith and I think Rolex never even came into contention! Isn’t that the real pinnacle and purpose of watchmaking. I digress….
I simply feel that to rank a Steinway as a tier 1 piano and the likes of Yamaha and Kawai down to tier 3 simply can’t be true. Why would so many performers use all 3 brands (not to mention many other great brands) regularly and Kawai of late has been chosen by many international competitions as the piano of choice?
That’s why I say a Rolex is a Steinway and a Kawai/Yamaha would be an Omega. I happen to believe that Omega is a better timepiece in many aspects whereas Rolex have truly rested on their laurels and are not pushing the proverbial technological boundaries as Omega are (think co-axial escapement). Ditto for Steinway and Kawai. Kawai are pursuing excellence/ innovation while Steinway is pursuing tradition. Wooden action parts vs. carbon fiber? Please don’t tell me you truly believe that wood is better?
So while Omega will never really capture the hearts of pure luxury seekers and on auction Rolex continues to do exceedingly well and poor old Omega just never seem to crack it. It is this perception that I believe creates the gap between Steinway and Kawai and not only the quality.
If you have bought a Kawai/ Yamaha, sleep well for you have a bought a true arbitrage in the piano world. If you have bought a Steinway, sleep well for you will get you money back and you have bought the “perception” that you have the best of the best, us Kawai owners smile knowingly and move on!

Please don’t misconstrue this article. I love the Steinway sound, love Steinways. I just love my Kawai that little bit more! Btw: I had a choice between a model M and and a RX-1. Played both and well there you go!

And when you consider that mechanical watches as a technology have been completely superceeded by electronic ones, and are only bought by people who want to demonstrate their wealth, which piano is like which then?

:-D

I should also point out that the 'carbon fibre' vs. wooden actions argument is not clear cut. Firstly they're probably fibre-filled ABS or something similar, and not carbon fibre as people imagine. Whilst they will be more stable, provided the moulding process is optimised, I wouldn't be surprised if they suffer from fatigue/brittleness after 30 years. In contrast I've worked on 100 - 150 year old wooden parts which were still perfectly serviceable. Of course if the plastic parts became cheap enough to replace every few decades then it wouldn't be an issue. As a mechanical engineer and someone who has worked on many pianos and instruments in his spare time, I would not yet be willing to recommend one action type over another.

Not to discredit your post, as I believe a lot as to what you say, but I also believe its a matter of opinion as to what's the "best", so to speak. And, while Mr. Fine, might have been comparing apples to oranges (pianos v. cars), you have now basically compared apples to grapes (pianos v. watches). While the comparisons that Mr. Fine uses, are somewhat lacking, name recognition goes a long way. For instance, you mention Rolex, Zenith, Omega, and Patek Phillipe in your comparison. I personally think Patek Phillipe is a far superior watchmaker than Rolex (innovations don't always make for a better company), but thats my opinion. I also believe Omega to be inferior to Tag Heuer, once again, my opinion. But, there are so many other great watches out there, that many haven't really in even heard of...(Mido, IWC, Tissot, Longines, Hamilton, Breguet, Blancpain, Glashütte, A. Lange & Söhne etc...), and even some more popular...(Cartier, Movado, Breitling etc...). The same can be said about cars, Mercedes is great but BMW, Jaguar and Audi can give it a run for its money, and Bentley and Rolls Royce, are in a class of their own when it comes to luxury. Honda is very well known, but not the only proletariat car. The same can be done with pianos. Steinway is a great brand and a great piano, but there are better or equivalent pianos out there that many haven't heard of. I'm no expert, and I'm sure I'll forget some (or a lot..), but a short list would include: Boesendorfer, Steingraeber and Söhne, Sauter, Seiler, Pleyel, Fazioli etc... Basically to make this short. I agree that pianos shouldn't be compared to cars, in fact, I don't think they should be compared to anything, including watches. I think the best way to compare pianos, would be to compare them with other pianos. But in a world where name recognition goes far, and for people who don't know anything about pianos, the car comparison works....mainly because everyone knows where each car company stands in our caste-like system of judgement.

Personally, I think Steinway is a bagel and Kawai is french toast.

I've often thought that people tend to talk about pianos the same way people talk about wine. That is, there is definitely good wine and bad wine where it is easy to taste the difference. But then there are wine boffins telling you that one fine wine has chocolatey cigar smoke aromas versus the another fine wine with smokey cigar chocolate aromas - and somehow it makes a big difference. In my opinion this is well past the point where psychology has taken over any real difference. I believe the same is true with violins where people swear by the enchanted sound characteristics of a Stradivarius above all other violins, but 'experts' trying to pick out a Stradivarius in double blind tests fail to do so statistically.

I think the Steinway is an amazing piano(s) and would dearly love to own one. However I am sure there is a lot of marketing and heritage that affects how we think about them vs other pianos.

And a handbag is not a proper mother.

That's such a bogus argument. Modern plastics don't deteriorate in 30 years. I've got acyrlic (Plexiglass), polycarbonate (Lexan) and other plastic items that I've owned for over 30 years. My wife likes to collect old/antique Christmas ornaments, and has styrene items from the 50s. They are all perfect. No deterioration, or even any sign of deterioration. Most plastic materials are quite stable. If not exposed to direct sunlight or extreme heat, most will last indefinitely. That's why people are so concerned with plastic in landfills--it just doesn't decay.

I can't believe that the idea that plastic doesn't hold up is still in play. Sure, 50 years ago, some piano companies used who knows what kind of cheap plastic, and it failed in use. Plastic technology is far beyond that. Anyone can use inferior materials in any product. The issue is not plastic or wood, it's between plastic appropriate to the job, and plastic that's cheap junk.

What would a Boston be, a waffle? The plate sort of looks like it.

This made me laugh.

I have said it before, but if I didn't repeat myself, I'd run out of things to say!
Car analogies are superficial at best. They are generally a cheap sales tactic.

Yamaha is the Toyota of pianos until the salesman notices that you arrived in a Honda accord.

I've always thought of Yamaha being the Honda (or Toyota) and Kawai being the Mazda, a very good product but without the big sales. So would this make Samick and Young Change the Kia and Hyundai of the pack? ha

Continuing this analogy, then Steinway would be the Cadillac, Baldwin (the former Baldwin) being the General Motors, M&H Lincoln, etc.

I own two Hondas and two Baldwins. They've all held up well in their ways. Though my 1949 Baldwin grand has issues.

In cars, pianos, watches, etc. buy what you like, what you can afford, and what appears to be good quality and value, and who cares what people think.

Elene

Maybe I'll try a little Mrs. Butterworth's with my Petrof and see how I like it

Personally I think a New York Steinway is a New York Steinway, a Hamburg is a Hamburg, a Kawai is a Kawai, and so on...

Norbert

(nodding, but of course)

... and the answer to the hypothetical question is a metaphor to something else, watches or cars usually.

A customer enters a piano store and just can’t help asking, “So tell me, what’s the best make of piano out there?”

The salesman probably has a few names ready for such a question, usually Steinway comes to mind because well people have heard of Steinway.

A late mentor of mine reckoned that the Steinway name all by itself was probably worth $100 million. (in 2000) I remember telling him that it wouldn’t be worth much if Steinways became known as mediocre and troublesome pianos after their long history of success; one does not rest on one’s laurels in the piano making business.

A Steinway is a bagel and a Kawai French toast. In that case, some of us have half English muffins with spots of mold on them, others have veritable bread crumbs. Who has the piece of standard tasteless white bread and what's its make?

Could they have helped it, the piano makers? If everybody could make a piano to the standards that usually prevail among Swiss watch makers, wouldn’t they all sound as sweet? Why can’t a piano maker make a better sounding, better feeling piano?

Guess what folks, it’s all rubbish, such arguments are. (to be Yodaesque)

The only piano worth considering is the piano that you simply can’t live without. It may be ridiculously expensive like a Fazioli and if so, oh well, only a Fazioli will make you happy, or a Steingraeber, Bluthner, Grotrian, etc. etc. Now, what if it’s something ridiculously cheap, can you still not be happy?

Some out there are “foodies” who place such a premium on their experience of food that they prefer the “every bite counts” style where portions are so small that it’s as if you are privileged to have some of the last edible morsels on earth, while you are surrounded by silent servants who would cut your salad for you from behind your back if you wished, while the whole experience leaves you feeling as if a famine must be raging right outside the door and your bank account always feels thinner than you do afterwords. Oh, be sure to swill that last gulp of extra expensive wine that went with it too, even if you didn't like it. You were supposed to know enough to know that however good it all might have been, you have still had better somewhere closer to Paris. Meanwhile the guy or gal who has more on their bones than is healthy for them is just as happy, happier, pulling through the drive thru at Burger King.

When someone walks into a piano store there may be many motives. Maybe one of their children is taking up piano for the first time. Maybe they are an adult who would want to return to piano study. Maybe they’re just curious. If the person is the pianist, then they have all kinds of curiosities; maybe they’ve played only a few pianos (unlikely) or maybe they’ve played hundreds. In that case it can be imagined that most of the pianos they played were not in tune, did not play with reliability, did not sound good even when they were are in tune, etc. The whole matter of what a piano looks like in terms of its furniture appeal is another element. Some, like me, like their pianos black, while others are looking for that extra dimension of exotic wood grains, figuration, etc.

After writing this, I’m reminded of the myriad of ways people seek to distinguish themselves and lots more fascinating evidence of human folly.

Then there’s music itself. Some will play nothing but jazz, pop or something like that while others will play perhaps only stuff fit to be played on harpsichords. Most will play a mix of everything. Does that matter? Are there some makes that are “jazz pianos” while others are “only for classical music?” I’m not sure that I think so.

Over my travels, I run into many nice pianos, some of course that can’t do some things as well as others, that too is a determinant; how difficult is the music that the pianist is playing on said piano? But of all the major brands and some newcomers from Asia, I have found many nice pianos regardless of price.

A better question: What about any piano would make you want to sit down and play it day in and day out for perhaps the rest of your life?

Actually, I think most pianos purchases are compromises unless one has 100K+ to spend.

Roy I mostly agree, especially when there is limited light exposure. And yes, the quality of plastics are fantastic now. But how many times does a piano key get struck in 30 years? That's lots of cyclical stressing. So how many plastic objects have you owned where clips/brackets have failed? Think bits in cars etc.
Please understand, I work with plastics every day. It's not often that any consumer goods are designd to last 30 years. They may well last that long, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked if they don't. Only time will tell, and it's certainly not worth having an argument over it.

Certainly there are wood objects that have lasted centuries under ordinary household conditions. Plastics are still a question mark in comparison.

Would a Timex be considered Yamaha? hahaha

Even then.

It all depends on design. For example, nylon screws and nuts can be under lots of stress, and perform very well for a very long time. A poorly designed wooden structure can fail prematurely. I look at it this way. A piano action is a mechanism, nothing more, nothing less. Wood is not used for mechanisms any more. Wood is not in your appliances, it's not under the hood, or under the dashboard of your car, and it's not used in industrial machinery. It's not in any of the myriad mechanical devices that are used in homes or in factories. Engineered metal, plastic, and composites are used because they are cheaper, stronger, more stable, and last longer. Composites are increasingly used in airplanes, where people's lives depend on them not failing. Would anyone argue that companies should start using wood in vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, food processors, airplanes, and automobiles because those products would then last longer?

I would argue that wood is only used in piano parts because piano companies and piano salesmen have somehow convinced consumers that wood has some magical properties that makes piano actions better.

...just expressing my opinion, not trying to start an argument.

You guys are out of your mind if you think most pianos under $100k are compromises. Either that or you have expectations so high that nothing but the best will suffice. Like people who buy a Bentley when a Mercedes or BMW will do fine.

The top of the line Kawai and Yamaha(Shigeru and CF)are rated as tier 2, the same as NY Steinway and one level below Hamburg Steinway.

Also the Fine rankings for regular Kawai and Yamaha are for all models considered together, not just for the concert grand model.

I think the 7' model of all the Fine tier one pianos are close to or above 100K and that is only for basic black. Of course, there are many pianos less than 100K that are for most people compromises only when compared to the best.

Even for less than half of 100K people may have to make compromises. For example, I bought a Mason BB in ebony satin because I felt I could not afford it in a more expensive wood finish. So I was making a compromise between the length(tone) and finish.

At the 10K level there can also be compromises. A shorter, somewhat lower quality grand vs. a very good upright. Each have advantages and disadvantages.

Funny.......I just got done doing a post on another thread where I talked about loving a Kawai as much as a Steinway.

Actually I think there are significant differences among brands and that they mostly correlate with reputation, and to a great extent with cost. But it depends a lot on a person's individual preference, particularly what type of piano you like. For me, for example, Yamaha is somewhat overrated and Kawai is grossly underrated. I wouldn't say it means Kawai "should" be rated higher; that's just how it is for me.

Which do you prefer, the Hondas or the Baldwins?

Roy,
all good points. Keep in mind that I have not said that plastic parts are inferior. I was merely making the point that they are not neccesarily superior. Assumming that we're comparing quality produced parts, I'd say that the plastic ones are probably more stable.
In the 'very' long term however, I merely argure that we do not yet know. I personally have had Yamaha replace a keyboard on my clavinova because the back ends of the keys, inside the piano, were failing. I noted that the new keyboard had an updated key design - no problems so far thankfully!
This is perhaps an unfair comparison as the fibre filled plastic used in wippens will be more versatile.
Where I work, serious effort goes into design of parts - drops tests, load tests, stress analysis.... even the smallest variations in walls thickness or even moulding gate design have large implications.
In order to keep the inertia down, these piano parts will have to be fairly optimised, and in use they will get quite a beating. All that said, the companies producing these parts are large, probably have teams of engineers and good reputations to maintain. In 30 years we'll know if they got it right!

There's no reason to wait 30 years. These days, the engineer(s) designing a composite action can use finite element analysis to know exactly what the stresses in the action parts will be. There's a large knowledge base of how particular plastics perform under various conditions. Plastic makers, such as GE, offer design assistance. Once prototype parts are built, all one has to do is to make a mechanical actuator (I believe they are called action pounders) that can exercise the action at several time per second, 24/7. Within a few weeks, one can put on 50 years of wear. There are no mysteries here, and no need to speculate. All that's required is good design, adequate testing, and good manufacturing practices. These are requirements for any product--even wooden actions. I find it beyond belief that one can't design a composite action that isn't better than a wooden action in essentially all respects.

I'm uncomfortable with the car analogy(and maybe the watch one as well)mainly because I have heard it from so many sales people in the past and I doubt if it is of any value to a prospective buyer.
The base material in the new carbon-fibre actions is ABS Styran which has been used successfully for many years.Should take care of the timber V. plastic argument to some degreee

I quite wondered why someone would come up with the idea to compare pianos with cars or watches.
For me, that just doesn't work out.
That's just a (personal) try to "classify" pianos. And so is the rating of Larry Fine in his book "piano buyer". The rating is just based on his personal opinion, and should therefore not be considered as the gold standard.

While Fine has the ultimate say in the rankings, those rankings are based on extensive input from techs, dealers, and pianists. It's been that way and stated in the PB since the frist Piano Book came out more than 20 years ago.