[ Rob Buckingham wrote about Weber in 020701 MMDigest: ]

> I have read in several different places that they were a major
> competitor of Steinway's in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
> ... The tone is also wonderfully rich and sweet.

I would have to say that, in the days before Steinway spent the
hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent in the last 100 years,
Steinway was only one of several great piano brands.

There was Weber, Steinway, Mason & Hamlin, Chickering, Knabe -- and
they were selected not because people decided they were the "best" but
because they liked the tone of the Mason & Hamlin or the Weber.  The
non-musical snobs of today that are convinced (by the media) that
Steinway is the best piano ever built and nothing else matters; this
is a very recent malady in the music world.

I have two 1893 Weber grands, as well as two Weber Duo-Arts, and there
is not a Steinway built of their size that can beat their tone in a
blind ear test.  Don't get me wrong; since Steinway was purchased by
the present owners they are making a good instrument once again, after
a long sad, dry spell while owned by CBS.  I just think that when a
piano company makes $94 million in a year, they are charging too much
for their pianos.

Now that they are no longer owned by Kimball International, I hope
Boesendorfer will sell their pianos on quality rather than the
Kimball bragging rights of having purchased the world's most expensive
piano.

D.L. Bullock
St. Louis, MO
http://www.thepianoworld.com/