Saw a model 200, about 30+ years old, rebuilt by a reputable shop. The original Schwander action had new Renner whippens. The hammers were Renner blues, the bass strings probably Mapes. While overall the work was of reputable quality, it was a long way from Bosendorfer and had this strange burnt orange, thick lumpy finish on the plate.
The real question is, what is it? I would argue that it is not a Bosendorfer anymore since so many of the parts were not original. This flies in the face of common rebuilder philosphy, at least here in the US. This approach comes from the experience with American Steinway which says that a good rebuilder can actually make a piano BETTER than the original.
The issue is that assumptions made about one make of piano do not translate directly to another and most of the tweaks that people would take for granted in a Steinway actually deteriorates a Bosendorfer. If you own one, you can do with it what you want and there are some great high end technicians out there. You could done one of those wild bridge modifications, change hammers, Stanwoodize the action, add brass weights to the soundboard…LOTS OF STUFF, but I don’t know that you would end up with a better piano. Different, yes.
I’ve been trying to think of a proper analogy to keep from sounding like some corporate stooge and maybe here is one:
A major overhaul of a Bosendorfer by a high end tech, using some of the modifications above, is sort of like a sommelier choosing to take 3 expensive bottles of wine and blending them himself just before serving. Yes, the end result might be better than any of the 3 individual bottles, but many people want to see what the vinyard bottled, what the vinyard was looking for. They’re looking for the experience the maker intended, not what somebody else, skilled though they might be, thinks is right, just because he (or she) can.
These modification tools are great for helping older instruments, or ones that clearly have dificiences in important areas. This kind of modification is a relative recent development in this business. But doing so has ramifications.
A rebuilder faces a challenge. Working with each manufacturer’s original parts requires slightly different techniques and sometimes different tools. Just as each manufacturer is thoroughly familiar and experienced using particular materials (plate finish, for example), a rebuilder is compelled to use the stuff he or she is familiar with. An average rebuilder is at a further disadvantage due to the much lower overall volume of work and having to be an expert at a very diverse set of skills, from woodwork to machining, to finishing, to fine regulation and concert-level tuning.
So the question becomes is the world better off with rebuilders who work with materials they understand and know how to control, or are original parts really the only way to maintain the genuineness of any given brand of piano? I am not talking about hotroding an instrument. If the answer is the latter, as you seem to suggest, then the only people who can rebuild a Boesendorfer are Boesendorfer people.
Also consider that manufacturers change their suppliers and implement product improvements that make today’s product very different from the one made a decade or two ago. Renner uses felt from different manufacturers to make the “genuine Hamburg Steinway” hammer. Today it’s a totally different product (with maple moldings) than it was 20 years ago (had mahogany moldings). So what hammers are ‘genuine’ when rebuilding a 1990 Hamburg? Boesendorfer went throughy at least 3 styles of whippens in recent history (Schwander to Steinway-style being most notable). Premium Blues may actually be closer to the genuine, orange underfelt hammers, than many other styles of replacement hammers (Abel, Imadegawa, Isaac, etc).
No question about it, the rebuilding work done by Boesendorfer is exceptional. But if performed to the same standards using different materials, does a rebuilding really invalidate the quality of the instrument? When it deteriorated to the point that it needed a rebuilding, the piano already changed. Do manufacturer’s current parts and materials really make the piano that much more genuine than using other, slightly different parts of the same quality?
Thanks for your comment Mario. The main point of the post was to point out that after rebuilding, the name on the fallboard may not have much to do with what the piano actually is. Assuming that the qualities of the original builder are important, then effort should be made to maintain those qualities. Most clients don’t understand the distinction and, in my opinion, many rebuilders don’t consider the original characteristics of the instrument. I am talking about very high level instruments, such as Bosendorfer and others. Many lesser brands, including the name most often sought after in the used/rebuilt market, are frequently improved by the skilled rebuilder.