Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum New Fall 2012 Edition of Piano Buyer

Norbert,

Who do you intend to impugn with this post, Steve or Larry? Are you seriously saying that Steve would endanger the reputation of Piano Buyer in order to sell a few lousy pianos? Do you really believe Larry would go along with that? I do not. I believe both of these gentlemen are far more honest than that.

This saddens me, Norbert. Just recently I defended you from a situation where it seemed apparent to me that someone was questioning your honesty and motives. Now I am seeing you doing the same thing to someone else.

Enough. Am I clear? ENOUGH.

Ken:

Please let me ask you this question:

Is there perhaps a different way to discuss things here than eliminating my entire post?

Is this not a place for free speech any longer?

Norbert

I'm with Norbert on this one about both his posts.

Read the entire thread.

Here is the question to be considered and answered;

What exactly is causing the fluctuation in Piano Buyer ratings for particular models of pianos when those same aforementioned models remain unchanged technically from the previous publication of the PB.

The answer is painfully obvious to anyone who does not suffer a certain kind of blindness.

So is the answer to deleted postings.

e·nough   [ih-nuhf]
adjective
1.
adequate for the want or need; sufficient for the purpose or to satisfy desire: enough water; noise enough to wake the dead.
Relevant Questions
How Much Exercise Is Eno...
How Much Ram Is Enough?
How Much Is Enough?
How Much Sleep Is Enough...
pronoun
2.
an adequate quantity or number; sufficiency.

adverb
3.
in a quantity or degree that answers a purpose or satisfies a need or desire; sufficiently.
4.
fully or quite: ready enough.
interjection
5.
(used to express impatience or exasperation): Enough! I heard you the first time.
Origin:
before 900; Middle English enogh, Old English genōh; cognate with German genug, Gothic ganohs, Old Norse nōgr; akin to Old English geneah it suffices, Sanskrit naśati (he) reaches

Synonyms
1. ample. 3. adequately, amply, reasonably.

Example Sentences
It's special enough for company, still simple enough for weeknights.
Sure enough, he says, closer inspection revealed physical differences that proved that each of the four was a unique species.
Good enough to eat right off the plant when picked at peak ripeness.

1. Please refer to the answer to this question I gave you when you asked in the PM you sent me..

2. Is there a way to salvage a post in which the substance was unfounded, unsupported innuendo that either Steve, Larry, or both would alter piano ratings for their own benefit? I don't think there is..

Please refer to this post made by our gracious host, Frank Baxter...

https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...at%20on%20the%20Forums?.html#Post1295379

There has not been any fluctuation in the relative rankings of pianos in the first 7 categories(I didn't check the classes after that but I bet there has been little or no change there also.) The only thing has has changed is the name of one broad category.

A simple side by side comparison of the Fall 2012 and Spring 2012 editions makes this glaringly obvious.

But even if there had been fluctuation in ratings I think the assumption of ulterior motives because there had been no major technical changes in a particular piano is without merit. People's opinions can change; there can be additional input from techs or other industry pros since the last ratings; small changes in production methods could push a make that was near the borderline up or down, etc.

This is copied directly from Fall 2011 Piano Buyer rankings:

PROFESSIONAL-GRADE PIANOS
Verticals: $8,000–$13,000
Grands 5' to 7': $16,000–$43,000
Bohemia
Vogel
W. Hoffmann (Tradition)
________________________________________
Boston (Japan)
Kawai RX grands
Kawai verticals (Japan)
Yamaha C grands
Yamaha verticals (Japan)



Bohemia, Vogel and W. Hoffmann (Tradition) were always ranked above (literally and qualitatively) Boston, Kawai and Yamaha.

Perhaps this was not perceived to be the case by some, but it is true. The horizontal line/rule used in the graphics was perhaps not as definitive as a separate "box" but it was clear - at least to me - that there was a distinction.

One can argue with this ranking, to be sure. But this is nothing new.

Tempest in a teapot.

In a way you are right. I think the Fine groupings are no more significant to Yamaha, Kawai, and Steinway/Boston than they are to the European piano community. In other words, they are a foreign curiosity and nothing more.

In another way you're wrong. There is some significance to the piano brands that have joined the group. The significance goes beyond the fact that a couple of them are comppletely fresh entries with no track record, very little market presence, and involve significant Asian OEM involvement in their production.

Another important aspect of this is that if you want to be a mapper of the market rather than a market maker, and you want your descriptive charts to serve as a rough guide to the market and not an arbitrary yardstick of pianos measured in inches, the worst possible way you could go about your task is to interject GOOD, BETTER, and BEST in your descriptions. The consumer looking for a quick fix on quality can rightly quote you as saying that the unproven X i better than then Y's and Z's that have a decades-old track record of product quality. And you know what -- it won't be a misquote.

Also, you have to consider retailer games. What's to stop a retailer from ordering a 12' long banner to adorn his store wall stating his unknown unproven Euorasian hybrid X has been judged superior to Y and Z.

Fine's been around the block. He's been misquoted by plenty of retailers and even by some makers, like Perzina. He says he doesn't want his charts taken to literally. If that's the case, he's made a really poor choice of words.

Let's see if Steve gets back and if he has anything to say about the basis of judging good, better, and best.

It worked for Sears.

I guess it's time for me to step in and answer some of the comments made here.

As I've said many times in the past, for a number of years now, especially since beginning the publication of Piano Buyer, my ratings have not been based on detailed inspection of pianos by piano technicians. The ratings are not intended as judgments about the performance of the pianos. They are intended only as a road map for those who are encountering the piano business for the first time and don't know one brand from another. They are not scientific, and I can't provide data to support them. They are based largely on price, secondarily by features, country of origin, and a few other factors, and then sometimes tweaked a little for subjective reasons, to show how the brands are generally positioned in the marketplace by those who sell them. Occasionally, where I think a brand is on the fence between levels or categories, I may use my own sense of where it "deserves" to be, but for the most part, it's an attempt to describe rather than judge the positions of the brands. After all, in most cases, neither manufacturers nor dealers pretend that every piano they make is the best in the world. They position them by price, features, and company attributes. So why is it wrong for me to try to do the same as best I can? As I say in the commentary that accompanies the chart, the actual performance of a piano may not follow exactly the position in the chart, as the price and position of a piano also takes into account factors other than performance that are important to consumers, such as name recognition, resale value, track record, warranty service, and yes, even bias for or against particular countries. But for me to get into the business of judging pianos solely on performance would open a can of worms I don't care to get into -- much too subjective, and much too time consuming. Instead, I run reviews by pianists in Piano Buyer, and hope to increase the frequency of such reviews.

Reasonable people can disagree with how all this is presented, but when I ask those who disagree to show me their own chart, they generally either eventually tell me that their disagreements are minor, or they throw up their hands and say it's impossible to do this because it's too complicated. I'm very much open to feedback, and I use that feedback extensively to experiment with better ways to present this information, which accounts for changes I make from time to time.

As the piano industry has changed over the years, and consumer and performance grade pianos have come closer together in quality, place of origin, and other factors, I felt I needed a third category to adequately describe the piano market. At first I called it "Professional Grade", but I got a lot of feedback that that term was not appropriate, in part because it might be construed as being better than Performance Grade! Therefore, I decided to use a term -- Intermediate Grade -- that did not carry the baggage of that connotation. I'm open to other names if you don't like that one. I used Good, Better, Best only to differentiate one level from another, just as I have terms to indicate those differences in the Consumer and Performance Grades. Again, if you don't like those, suggest others.

There are several rather obscure or new brands that are listed because their manufacturers or distributors have asked me to do so. It makes it easier for their dealers to sell when the brands are listed. Where I feel I have a good sense of where the brands fit in, I'm happy to oblige. Some are more difficult to fit in than others.

Norbert is right that there can be big differences even within a single brand, something I mention myself in the commentary that accompanies the chart. In some cases, I've split a brand into various parts, especially for the more popular brands, or where the differences are truly huge. I don't like to do this too much, however, as it can lead to an unwieldy chart whose detail becomes counterproductive.

As for prices, the MSRP is whatever the manufacturer gives me. The SMP is always computed the same way: I take the price a small dealer is likely to pay (that is, not a price discounted for quantity purchase), add an amount for freight and setup (and, if necessary, for duty), and then mark it up by a standard profit margin, the same for every brand. This forms a benchmark price I called SMP. Actual selling prices are usually at a discount to this price. There are, of course, many situations that could result in a rock-bottom price for a particular buyer, such as when a dealer just wants to unload an expensive piano that has been unsold for a long time, where a dealer buys a piano at a closeout price from the manufacturer, etc. But it would be wrong for me to try to publish such prices, as it would create unrealistic expectations and be unfair to everyone.

Those who harbor some suspicions about someone who both rates products and takes advertising are not wrong to be suspicious. But suspicion does not equal guilt. As I told this group when I first launched Piano Buyer three years ago, I was led to this approach because people were stealing my work and putting it up in one form or another on their websites, and consumers were no longer buying books but instead wanted their information for free. So I had a choice of either accepting advertising or going out of business. Since most pianos were by now made quite well and were no longer defective as many once had been, I decided that I could accept advertising without it actually affecting my decisions. However, it's not wrong to scrutize what I do to make sure I stay honest.

I can assure you that Steve's comments are not given any more importance than anyone else's. And to his credit, his comments have been very impartial. It's not unusual for him to speak highly of a competitive product. The idea that I am rating the brands he sells more highly than other brands doesn't even pass the smell test. In new pianos, Steve sells Kawai and Pramberger (but not J.P. Pramberger). Neither of these has changed ratings significantly.

Actually, the idea that I would favor Steve, who doesn't pay me anything, doesn't make any sense. If I were corrupt, it would be the advertisers I would favor. But which of the 50 paying advertisers would I favor? I can't favor all of them, or even more than a few of them, because their interests are in conflict with one another. Periodically, a few manufacturers or distributors do lobby me for changes to their ratings. Some of these have been big advertisers. Although I'm always willing to revisit ratings, in most cases their petitions have been rejected as being unjustified. When this happens, I do risk losing thousands of dollars in revenue, but I decided a long time ago, that I could not be in this business unless I maintained a strict separation in my own mind between ratings and advertising, regardless of the consequences. Those who know me, and in whom I confide, know that I have done this.

If one wants to find corruption here, there are undoubtedly a number of small irregularities, inconsistencies, or changes that one could find to try to support one's charge. But taken as a whole, and considering the tremendous advertising support of a wide variety of manufacturers and distributors, I think I've done a pretty good job. Indeed, the industry would not support me if they thought my ratings were up to the highest bidder.

As has been noted elsewhere, most of the rating changes in this edition have been the addition and deletion of categories and levels, resulting in a slight rearrangement, but little of significance otherwise. As has been mentioned here, this is always a work in progress, reflecting both changes in the piano industry and experiments with better ways of presenting information.

However, I never claim to have the final answer, and there's nothing wrong with people criticizing the ratings, both the specific ratings and the way they are presented. But I wish some of the most vocal critics would contact me directly with their criticisms and offer practical alternative visions and suggestions. And it's completely unnecessary to imagine the worst sort of corruption in order to criticize or disagree.

I find that many questions and criticisms would be answered if people would read the commentary that accompanies the rating chart, and the introduction to the price information. Both of those writings also change slightly from time to time.

Thank you for taking the time to read through this long response.

The basis is the same as it has always been, and the explanation for the rankings has appeared in, I believe, every edition of the Piano Buyer. And the relative positions of the pianos in those three categories is the same as the previous edition and probably the one before that and the one before that(with the edition of two new models).

I find the discussion about the "good, better, best" terms beyond ludicrous. IMO the only possible reason for discussion/complaints about words like those is the desire to be argumentative. Those are just about the simplest and most straight forward words imaginable. If Fine had used A,B, and C then I'm sure the complainers would object also.

Whenever a major class has been broken down in subclasses(which has usually been the case)those words have in effect been there even if Fine used different adjectives or columns or horizontal lines to separate subclasses.

It has already been pointed out in this thread that the two new pianos you mention have an asterisk next to their listing to indicate the sampling of pianos was small.

Even if, for the sake of argument, anything you said had any validity, it would still be the equivalent of complaining about a speck of dirt on some pristine beach. Complaining about the type of font used in the book would be equally important.

Statement retracted. I am glad I visited all the dealers around.

This is only one person's opinion, or actually only the opinion of a nameless avatar with a mutt's face, but in my experience, the more unsophisticated the audience one is writing to, the more one has to guard against reducing comparisons to one-word descriptors such as good, better, and best. Those terms do not suggest price, brand legacy, or the intended positioning by a manufacturer. They strongly suggest product quality.

In the absence of any attempt to measure product quality through technical inspection and performance of different samples, I think these terms are inappropriate and misleading, all of the commentary that explains the groupings on other pages notwithstanding. You state that you are writing to an audience with little piano sophistication. This is exactly the audience over which these one-word quality descriptors will exert the strongest gravitational pull, and in cases like this, "good" will not be perceived as good, but simply the bottom of the barrel in terms of the grouping.



This is what caught my eye. I felt the original professional category was a hodgepodge of proven performers such as Yamaha C and Kawai RX and some minor European brands that used manufacturing opportunities in other countries to cut costs. It seemed an odd mix, but the category also seemed like a transitional step that was part of a work in progress.

The inclusion now of some (as you say) obscure and/or new brands in this issue gave me the feeling that the new category was not becoming any more coherent. The positioning of these new brands in the 'best' category led me to question Steve as to the basis of evaluation. It seemed unlikely that it was track record since there was none. Nor did brand legacy seem important since each new entrant involved an OEM partnership with or ownership by an Asian manufacturer who did not share in the brand's legacy. My guess was that it came down to price positioning, bias toward European makers, and pressure from those European makers heavily into cost-cutting sublines that involve such overseas partnerships -- manufacturers who wanted their latest wares displayed in your publication. I will admit to a likely bias against these arrangements, but would add that the bias is based on a certain boredom with successive waves of European-branded Eurasian hybrids that have achieved little penetration in the marketplace you seek to "describe".

To see artist-level pianos from Yamaha and Kawei with extremely strong track records of performance and durability in tough placements such as studios, teaching institutions, and performance venues pushed aside for new unproven Eurasian concoctions galled me, and in all honesty still does. That's not to say that those pianos don't have appeal, but that the arrangements under which they are made don't seem to have much permanence.

Over the years, I have experimented with many different levels of detail in these charts. In the fourth edition of The Piano Book, I used an extensive rating system to rate on the basis of various factors. I found that people simply did not read it. The least sophisticated buyers told me they wanted something simpler, even if it glossed over the details. It's very easy to criticize my rating system, but much harder to come up with a better one that people will actually use. I have challenged many people in the industry to come up with one, and have yet to receive it. If you think you can do better, then show me. I would welcome the suggestions.

Some of the obscure brands that have been added to the Intermediate Grade pianos are brands that are partially made in Asia and then completed in Europe by established European manufacturers who have been in business for centuries. The fact that these brands are not well known should not disqualify them from appearing in the charts. How to classify these pianos of hybrid origin has long been a problem for me, and the adding of the Intermediate Grade has allowed me to classify them in a reasonable fashion. I do think that the fact that they are completed in Europe instead of being made entirely in Asia does add to their quality, and of course adds to their cost. Whether the extra cost is worth it or not, I'll leave to the consumer to decide. Turandot feels that their lack of track record should disqualify them from this high a rating. I feel otherwise because of the European maker behind them and involved in the actual production. Turandot's position is not unreasonable, but the price that these pianos fetch in the marketplace suggests that those who buy and sell them do not agree.

I don't agree that it's misleading to use the terms Good, Better, Best, any more than it's misleading to use Good Quality, High Quality, and Highest Quality for the different levels of Performance-Grade pianos. Generally speaking, more expensive pianos are of higher quality than less expensive ones. Depending on one's definition of quality, this correlation may be more or less perfect, but there is a strong correlation in any case. My chart, and the terms I use, reflect this reality. Again, my goal isn't to judge exactly to what extent this may or may not be true with respect to any particular brand (which in any case is highly subjective and can't really be proven), but simply to reflect the way the brands are presented in the market. I realize that this may not satisfy some piano aficionados who are looking for a hard-hitting critique, but they're not my audience for this chart.

Let me say again that Steve had nothing to do with any of this. Although he's listed on my masthead as Contributing Editor, he actually is not much involved anymore with the publication, as he is busy with other endeavors. I consult with him occasionally about particular articles that are submitted for publication, or about sales practices, dealer agreements, and other details of the piano business. Also, you should know that new pianos represent only a very small percentage of the sales of his full-line music store. Although newcomers to this site might be swayed by the suggestion that I would twist the rating chart to benefit him, those who have observed my conduct over the last 25 years should know better. I'm actually in touch on a regular basis with many dealers, many of whom I count as my friends. Collectively, they sell just about every brand on the market. I would be hard pressed to come up with a chart that would somehow benefit all of them.

Wages in Europe are considerably higher than in Asia. The quality of the components in the instrument does not change; simply the location of assembly.


One thing Turandot and I agree upon. How can an unknown unproven brand in the marketplace be held up to a higher level of listings than a brand with an already proven track record?



Using this mindset I can now take my Toyota in parts and have Mercedes assemble the car which then becomes of higher quality (somehow) and a higher price? Just because things are more expensive doesn’t mean they are better quality. This is an absurd rationalization/justfication….

Double post

Your statement makes it sound like you don't think cratsmanship or amount/quality of factory prep have anything to do with the quality of a piano. I think design, quality of the components, and craftsmanship are all part of a piano's quality.

No one seemed to complain when Fazioli, after a very short track record, was placed in the absolute highest level...far higher than the pianos you're discussing. Similarly, Mason Hamlin was placed in the second highest level after a short track record.

I don't think an analogy between building cars and pianos is particularly good. I think building a piano is more than putting the parts together like a jig saw puzzle.

As the publication has little in the way to do with your involvement the point is moot.



This statement simply reveals an incomplete knowledge of the manufacturing industry over the last century and a half.