New or restored Mason & Hamlin

[lacrossekeys]

So I've finally decided to take the plunge and purchase a studio size (5'8" or less) grand and have narrowed the choices to three that are roughly the same price-

a new 5'8" Mason & Hamlin
a new 5'8" Schimmel
restored 5'4" depression era Mason & Hamlin

The restoration is yet to be started but would be done by a guy whom I trust and who has done concert Steinway restorations for Peabody and Curtis among others.  I am really torn because the thought of a vintage M&H brought back to life is very romantic and the instrument is from a "golden age" of piano building.  But I would have to commission the restoration basically sight unseen, certainly unplayed.  Am I nuts even considering not going with a spanking new piano?  Is the quality of those vintage instruments that much greater than contemporary pianos that it would overcome the advantages of size and more modern production methods?

[Axtremus]

If they are all the same price -- buy the NEW one. There is no reason you have to take the risk the uncertainty of getting a piano "sight unseen" if you're not any better off financially. Plus, with new piano, you can pick one out of a bunch and buy one RIGHT NOW, don't have to wait a few months to a year or more -- that's another uncertainly that has cost associated with it.

The thing with rebuilt pianos is that their quality depends on the people rebuilding them, not the original makers who made them. 80 years of technological progress since the Golden Age and you don't think piano makers have learnt new tricks to make better pianos? Even your rebuilder will likely apply new techniques and new material when rebuilding a vintage piano (he may not have learnt the exact techniques used in the Golden Age, or the material used in the Golden Age may no longer be available). Everything save the rim and the plate may be replaced (and most likely they will be if you're quoted the same price as a new 5'8" for a rebuild). Besides, the "Golden Age" was golden because there was a great number of pianos produced in America at that time, not because of their superior build quality.

If you really want the romantic notion of a vintage piano, that's perfectly fine, just don't confuse that with build quality or expected performance of the rebuild. If you really want a rebuild, one thing you can do is to play a few finished samples of the rebuilder's work (hopefully those of the same make/model or at least the same size) and verify for yourself that indeed the rebuilder's rebuilt pianos can favorably compare to the new pianos you're considering.

Good luck!

[Rich D.]

I would also recommend buying a new one.  A 5'4" Mason Hamlin, even perfectly restored could not keep up with the new Schimmel 5'8" or Mason hamlin 5'8".  My bias is with the Mason Hamlin.   The Mason Hamlin 5'8" is a terrific piano.  Also the new Mason Hamlins today are built extremely well and many experts believe are equal to or better than the "golden age" pianos.

[lacrossekeys]

Thanks guys, that helps.  I feel the same, and am trying to think with my head and not my heart.  I have a few more weeks before the space is ready for an instrument so I'll see who else weighs in on the subject.

[sirpazhan]

I'd personaly go with the a new 5'8" Schimmel -- I dont know what the finish is,, but Schimmel has a nice two tone (walnut/ebony high gloss) finish which is real nice.. I would not take my chances with the restored Hamlin,, if you have the option,, go new..   

as far as new vs. vintage,, in my opinion its all preference -- new pianos have alot of new features,, patents etc.. -- old ones sound all nice and broken in..

its a matter of you going out there and doing some ground work,, play on some old restored/original pianos and then try out some brand new ones,, see for youself..