I know that in Russia has made ​​several copies of the Steinway:
1. Piano Company "Tresselt," produced grands "in the system Steinway" - the beginning of the 20th century
2. At the same time, the piano company, "Schroeder" has released a series of cabinet grand pianos - Steinway copies
3. In the Soviet Union in the factories of "Red October" (Leningrad), and "Lira" (Moscow), made ​​up of concert grand pianos under the name "Moscow".

Does anyone know anything about the reaction of "Steinway" to these infringements of patents?

The piano manufacturing world is replete with "Steinway" copies. There are dozens of pianos with almost, if not absolutely identical, Steinway scales, down to the millimeter. Some are better 'Steinways" than the genuine article manage to be.

Patents are good for only so long. After that there is no infringement. It's an interesting topic, but hardly surprising, that the company that has been the best historically at marketing, has it's manufacturing methods copied by others.

Somehow, this makes it sound like a Marilyn Monroe Look-Alike Contest... or an Elvis convention.

Pretty much...............

Would you rather have a Madelyn Albright look alike contest?

This is "Soviet Steinway" named "Moskva" (Moscow)

http://www.forumklassika.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=60909&d=1327601169

Hi,

When I went to a computer conference in Russia in 1992 in St. Petersburg, they had a "Red October" piano in the conference center. I remember we were quite entertained by the name once someone translated the Cyrillic for us. Are they still being made? Are (were) they junk or good pianos? The one I saw must have been made by the Soviets.

Wasn't it Yamaha which had Steinway-oid tubular action rails early on?

Well I guess that is blatant but every modern piano incorporates features originally patented my Steinweg/Steinway, though those patents are 150 years old.

It's good to have the recipe. Now make the dish.

Ya, good cooks might give you the recipe, but won't tell you how they made it!

Russia has many great and beautiful things.
The vast majority of those great and beautiful things were imported.

Those statements can probably sum up the situation. If a Russian company successfully copied the Steinway design and used quality materials, then it could be a very good instrument. If not... then it's not worth the trouble to find out if it was good or bad; you'll be able to find something else that you know is good, with a lot less effort.


Other than that, Russia has some great architecture and art, particularly in the city of St Petersburg. The people are wonderful and I love that country, and they export a beautiful car called Marussia. But in terms of finely crafted musical instruments, I'd be curious but have low expectations.

This observation is, I think, while widespread, still quite incorrect but understandable as the result of Steinway's status as the most prominent survivor of a once populous fraternity. It also is perpetuated through the diligent marketing of these illusions by salesmen. Other than the overstrung plate and vertically laminated bridge, almost every thing else in the suite of those features most frequently sttributed to Steinway's originality was developed elsewhere.

Consider, for the example, the HF Miller concert grand of the 20's: overstrung plate (Steinway), all agraffes, no capo, only laminated outer rim, built up inner one, a cut but not laminated bridge, shaped or curved ribs and very thin soundboard: untuned duplex segments; the plate is supported by a cut piece of wood rather than acoustic dowels as is that of Steinway; these are all quite different technical approaches than those of Steinway even though the piano is, in fact, quite a modern
piano.
Consider again: the Kranich & Bach Style K concert grand from the twenties: no agraffes at all, a capo that extends from bass to treble (this is similar to early Chickerings and actually predated Steinway); radically different scaling and bass bridge placement along with a case shape greatly unlike Steinway; no front duplex with separately tunable duplexes in the lowest three tenor sections with the top section having a ridge cast in the plate for the rear string rest; flat ribs but remarkably thin so much as to be greatly unlike Steinway. The plate is not supported by acoustic dowels ala Steinway but, rather, vertically a vertically laminated support continuous and bent to shape against the rim.

Consider once more: the Chickering 141 concert grand from the twenties having yes a vertically laminated rim but assembled in two pieces; a cut not laminated bridge, different case shape, flat ribbing but using only 15 rather than 17 ribs, no tone collector or treble "bell"; but, yes acoustic dowels for plate supports. This piano is the most "Steinway" like of any Chickering yet still quite different. Other Chickering concert grand designs are still further dissimilar in technical aspect from that of Steinway, and, indeed, many times from each other.

And consider lastly: The Charles Mehlin "Orchestral Concert grand" with its very large shaped ribs and soundboard buttons, radically different case shape, extremely long acoustic dowels: "freely vibrating soundboard" that is floating at the end of the long bridge, and graduated acoustic bridge - one which is vertically laminated yes, but completely different in many aspects to the bridge on a Steinway concert grand. Also the layout of the bridge, plate and sounboard relative to one another is radically different to that of Steinway.

There are other examples but to reiterate the point: Steinways' apparent ubiquity is just the result of its having outlasted in commercial success its competitors. I don't believe this is entirely a function, by any means, of the technical features of its design system but, rather, a complicated question involving aspects of the market itself. Consider the similar approaches by Steinert, Wissner, AB Chase and others. Their pianos, wonderful instruments all, and faithful incarnations of the Steinway "System" have fallen by the wayside as well, even though they are imbued with "Steinway technical features" and, indeed sound much like Steinways. Steinways' system, although brilliant is but one example of the highly-advanced artistic piano design systems which proliferated during the heydey of the piano industry in the US.

Finally, one last point, there was no fundamental connection, particularly as regards things technical, between the American company Steinway & Sons and the German company Grotrian - Nachfolger Theodor Steinweg, which means "Grotrian, the successor (in the sense of assignor) to Theodore Steinway" other than the fact of Theodore Steinway in Germany at one period or another, having owned an interest in a small developing piano company far different than the American behemoth that was already the largest piano manufacturer in the world. Theodor's brilliant innovations were intended to be for, and associated with his American company - Grotrian's technical development was in no way the nursery for that of Steinway but rather vice versa although Grotrian has played upon this connection, now, for over a hundred years. Theodore had already sold, or surrendered his interest in Grotrian to satisfy a debt, although I am little hazy on the details at the moment, some time before his death.
Regards, Robin Hufford, RPT

All their patents of any importance have lapsed long ago. Patent law has varied over time and, of course, varies among different countries, but, in general, patents are good for about 20 years.

What makes Steinways better than its Yamaha and Kawai counterparts? I've played on Steinways, particular a well kept B, and Yamahas and Kawais and didn't have a noticeably better experience on the Steinways. They're fantastic pianos, but so are the better kept Yamaha and Kawai pianos I've played.

Just thought this thread was interesting. The technician I am a secretary for used to work for Lira.

The practice of copying another maker’s design is an old, time-honored tradition in the piano industry.
In 1916 in his book, A Treatise on the Art of Pianoforte Construction, Samuel Wolfenden wrote,



And then there is this from Piano Tone Building (the March 1919 meeting in New York City):

Later in the same meeting there was this exchange:


Little has changed over the years. Copying is still a common—perhaps the most common—method of coming up with a “new” piano design. Within just the past decade I am personally aware of three occasions where well-known pianos have made their way to China where they have been meticulously measured and duplicated. Prior to that both American and European pianos were finding their way first to Japan and then to Korea.

It is, in my opinion, a sad way to develop a product line. My objections to the practice are much the same as those expressed by Wolfenden nearly a hundred years back.

ddf

Speaking of Wissner, would his one have been some sort of Steinway copy as well? http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/msg/2786952617.html

I wonder how the quality of Wissner grands compare with Steinert grands of similar size? I'm pretty thrilled with the 1929 Steinert S&S "B" copy that I bought in October. It's ripening into a very nice piano at this point.

Speaking of Steinway copies, I owned a late 80’s model Japanese made “Tokai” G180 grand that was an exact copy of a Steinway “O” (5’10.75”). It looked exactly like a Steinway O… but it didn’t sound like a well prepped Steinway O. It was rather bright and nasal sounding, but some aggressive hammer voicing gave it a less bright and less nasal tone.

Of course, it served me well for about 4 years. I think it was Pianolance who tagged it “The Japanese Steinway”.

Rick

There has been a similar thread here in June last year.

And some posts my some members appears to be nearly excact copies of the posts in this thread :):

Copying a maker's scale design.

schwammerl.

You are right… amazingly similar comments by some of the same members (including me ).

Does that mean we are getting old when we start repeating ourselves and tell the same stories over and over again!

Rick

Hey Rickster, I knew your Japanese Steinway would make its way onto this thread. LOL!!! I have a question. Since Baldwin was nearly as successful as Steinway with artist endorsements, especially very popular artists such as Liberace, Leonard Bernstein and John Williams, are there any Baldwin copies of note? You always hear about Steinway copies, but it seems that it would have been just as legitimate to copy some of the wonderful Baldwin designs. If not, why not?

I don't think Baldwins are as easy to copy.

Good question. I’d guess it’s because the Japanese/Korean/Chinese piano makers have always been more impressed by Steinway’s marketing cachet. And its strong presence in both the U.S. and in Europe; Baldwin is largely unknown outside of the U.S.

ddf

Easier, I should think. Their basic design and their construction is less complex and depends less on highly skilled labor (or, nowadays, highly sophisticated machinery) for its assembly.

Even though I don’t know of any manufacturers directly copying Baldwin designs there are now more than a few copying some of Baldwin’s assembly techniques. The adjustable plate mounting system is on its way to becoming nearly universal in Asia. And the vertical hitch pin is now being used successfully—albeit in a non-adjustable format—by several very high-end manufacturers. And high time, I say!

ddf

I am not as familiar with Steinert grands as I am with those of Wissner; i.e. I have seen more of the Wissners by far than I have of the Steinert pianos. I have acquired, however, what is obviously a Steinert or Steinert companies concert grand, probably which will be seen to be labeled either Steinert or Hume, - the piano discussed here several years ago which was fraudulently tricked out as a Steinway and this may be instructive in the future of some of the attributes of Steinert's production. However, never being one to allow an indistinctiveness of fact to preclude a distinctiveness of formed opinion, I would hazard a guess that the two lines are fairly similar in quality. Many Wissners I have seen have not held up as well, that is the wood in various action components can be seen to have deteriorated more than one sees in some other high-quality pianos. I don't know enough about Steinerts to say one way or the other.
Regards, Robin Hufford, RPT

Have you encountered a Wissner upright with a fourth aliquot string in the treble section? I came across a piano that was a near copy of a Steinway K with the exception that it had this fourth string set just a bit back from the tri-chord string set (so the hammer did not strike it). My memory tells me it was a Wissner but, as this was probably 35 to 40 years ago I could be mistaken.

ddf

I have not seen one in which I have noticed a fourth string, although I would very much like to see one. I do have a wonderful Wissner upright, with a very elaborate case, of course secondary for my purposes, which, to my ear, is one of the two or three best sounding uprights ever built, even in its present state.
I was called out to tune it. When I got there I found it would not hold a tune at a number of notes. I then sold another upright to the customer and took this one in on trade. This is truly an upright "grand" - the plate is mounted like a grand upside down, supported on dowels which allows the pinblock to fit to the flange very much like a grand that is, it is up off of the back. Also there is a capo in the treble, and, perhaps, this extends all the way to the bass. The piano is a little difficult to access at the moment.
It may be that the "Inverted Grand" of Mehlin has a similar arrangement structurally to that of the Wissner. I have never seen one of these. There were a few of this style of upright construction indulged in when they could be sold for the extra cost. It is an entirely remarkable and big sounding piano. I will keep my eye out for one with a fourth string.
Regards, Robin Hufford, RPT