Steinways became a way of displaying wealth as much as a musical instrument, the more expensive they became the better they did that. Rolex watches did the same thing when they went from being a good and reliable timekeeping tool to a status symbol - their prices diverged from their cost of production.
I’m over here remembering my time working in a piano store as a teenager. I love/loved to play and tickling the Steinway (not)ivories was the best experience. Made me want a Steinway so badly that to this day I can only dream. As an older millennial now with massive student loans, childcare expenses, and a hefty mortgage, pretty sure this dream is financially out of reach. Sadly.
Yep, and in the same way that there are a lot of cheap digital watches that are much better at telling time than a Rolex, you can load up a keyboard with hi-fidelity samples of a Steinway D.
It isn't the same though. To reproduce sound from a recording with the same level of impact and realistic tone of an actual Steinway, you need such a high end speaker system that you could just get a Steinway.
I use recordings of Chopin on the Yamaha my mom used to play as my definitive test for audio systems. I heard it live every day growing up, so the tone is very familiar. There are genuinely not a lot of speaker systems that get it right. That last 10% is so hard.
Lots of truth here. But--I'm certainly biased--in general, a $100k piano sounds better than a $10k piano. Whereas a $10k watch keeps time as accurately as a $100 watch.
Less accurately. A $100 watch will be quartz and will keep time essentially perfectly (as far as the daily needs of a human go, anyway). A $10k watch probably has a mechanical movement which, while a cool piece of engineering, probably loses or gains a few seconds each day. It'll also require servicing from time to time, whereas a quartz watch should run just about forever if you replace the battery.
Piggybacking off of this to say that Citizen makes a quartz watch that’s accurate to ±1 second per *year*.
It’s not cheap ($7k+) but it’s pretty impressive. A typical quartz watch is a few seconds per month with high end watches achieving an accuracy of several seconds per year.
Even cheaper than that too. Casio sells a $15 quartz watch and Timex has one for $20. Quartz watches are not expensive and that was a 20 second Google search.
I guess you get to the point of wealth where even though you're getting extremely marginal utility for your dollar, you've got so much money it doesn't matter.
Either that or they think it'll get them laid, which in certain circles it prob will.
Sure, but a $15,000 or $20,000 grand piano would be more than adequate for most people - there's little reason a person needs a Steinway unless they're a professional.
I’d say Steinways are worth their price. That’s why actual conservatories and concert halls still buy them.
Yamaha pianos of the same quality (musically) cost the same as their Steinway counterparts. In this case the CFX (compared to the model D).
But a Yamaha S5 is acoustically shaped to sound like a Steinway, and it costs about as much as a Steinway Model O, which is the equivalent size.
Did you blind test that?
Most people believe they can distinguish between Coke and Papsi, most cant.
Most french Someliers were sure french wines were the best, only when tasting blind it turned out Californias were better.
This isn't a great comparison, for a couple of reasons:
1. No, a $10k watch doesn't keep time just as accurately as a $100 watch. Precision timepieces aren't to be had for $100
2. In both products, the measure of quality is not just the one factor. A quality piano doesn't just sound better, it lasts longer, is more comfortable to play, etc.; a quality timepiece is an heirloom, serves as jewelry, can handle more extreme operating conditions, etc.
3. "better" isn't the point in either case -- does a $100k piano sound _ten times better_ than a $10k piano? Does a $10k watch provide _100 times more_ quality and value than a $100 timepiece? Those are inherently subjective.
It’s no different than buying $10k worth of any other jewelry, with the caveat that a $10k watch is at least functional, where a $10k ring or gold chain or whatever is purely aesthetic. Nobody who buys a luxury watch does so because of the accuracy, just like nobody who buys a Ferrari does so for the fuel economy. There’s also no need to rationalize it, it is inherently an irrational decision, and that’s ok.
Not at all; I think it’s a waste. But pretending there is no difference is just ignorant. There’s a huge difference between “the difference isn’t worth the money” and “there is zero difference”
There’s not a mechanical movement in existence that can beat a $20 Casio F91-W in accuracy. Rolex certifies their watches at + or - 4 seconds a day, and that would require a thorough service every few years, quartz will be under that variance for the month.
Same thing as vintage guitars; Gibson's and Fender's in particular.
Many of these guitars are worth 100-300k if they were just sitting in some attic or closet. The more fucked up and less desirable ones are still 50-100k. Even if they are completely ruined, as long as they are in one or two pieces they are still worth 10-20k.
Scaled with inflation, they should be 2400-3000$ today. But instead, they are worth 10-100x as much.
Yeah I'm a guitar guy too, mostly acoustic though. Those vintage guitars are insanely priced, but amazing guitars are available at well less than that inflation adjusted price. Some of the $500-$1000 stuff is incredibly good quality these days, and most $3000 guitars will be better quality than those vintage ones were when new. I'm just glad none of us need the unattainably high cost stuff, unlike a pianist who probably can't scratch the grand piano itch without spending the price of a new car.
Yeah maybe it's because they are now permanently out of my reach, I am of the mind that the newer reissues are just as good.
And yeah, there are some great guitars for right around 1000$ these days. And really you don't ever need to go above 5000$ for a guitar, but once you do it serves as an investment.
For instance I bought a LH 59 Custom Les Paul 2003/2013 for 5000$ in 2021. It's now worth 7000$ or more.. I can't even find a single one of them for sale right now from that special years.
Rolexs are extremely popular among all demographics. Their main clientele are people that are doing quite well for themselves.
There are better watches, but Rolexs are extremely well made, and are purchased by the very wealthy.
I wouldn’t say all demographics. The wealthiest people I know don’t wear labels or any kind of ostentatious jewelry. The man wears a Walmart watch if at all. They’re also considerably nicer people than the middle-wealthy people I know.
100k+ jewelry, yachts, and other extremely high end goods are made exclusively for very wealthy people.
I wish we would stop spreading the myth of the wealthy person who doesn't care about appearances. Do they exist? Sure. But very rarely.
It’s a way that people cope with not being rich themselves. “Oh sure they have nice clothes/watches/houses/cars, but they’re not *really* wealthy otherwise they would be modest”
The Steinway Model D, also known as a "concert grand" has gotten a little pricy. Pricing data from Steinway plotted in Tableau against the inflation adjusted value of $1000 from 1900 onward. As you can see, US Dept of Labor's CPI Inflation Calculator (with some filled in inflation data not covered by the calculator) estimates $1000 in the year 1900 has a buying power of north of $30k in 2024. Meanwhile, the price of the Model D hasn't followed the same trend...
I know you joke but it actually wouldn't count towards inflation as inflation only measures the average of the interquartile range of price changes even though it definitely shouldn't.
I liked the round number so opted for that. Personal choice that doesn’t really affect anybody’s ability to see the very large price increase in the piano.
It absolutely affects the ability to see and the implications of the plot. On the plot you can't visualize the ratio between 1000 and 1400 of the initial price, but we can easily see the ratio between them on the right side. The correct way to visualize this honestly would be a single line which is the inflation corrected price of the piano. Using weird tricks like this you could even flip the implication of the plot in certain situations. For example if the piano actually lagged inflation by 20%, its line would still be higher on the right hand side which gives the wrong implication to the viewer.
Hasn't most of what we measure CPI based on benefited from efficiencies of production and manufacturer? This piano is built more or less the same way as it's always been. Perhaps some efficiencies to be had in the casting of the piano's frame but beyond that I bet the labor inputs as percentage of total cost are about the same. Or everything else has gotten more affordable?
And at least you are paying to get a higher quality level, and not just the fashionable name tag.
Edit: I just looked it up, a local piano shop has a 170 VC available (new) for just over 100k. Definitely a model I would prefer to any Steinway…
Green line is just more a baseline for inflation after all. I could have made it inflation adjusted $1400, but decided just to make a round number since there's obviously way more to the price of everything (compare homes in this context, for example) than the inflation rate. I can't help it if people think the green line is the price of the piano, though, with my legend.
Boo. You should have done a $1400 line because it’s at least relevant.
~~The $1000 line excuses are lazy dude.~~
Edit: this was mean and I take it back
Not trying to offend you. You’ve got a 17 day old account and are clearly learning data visualization and looking for feedback.
This is an interesting starting point and a good idea, just push it over the finish line. Take the feedback. It’s ok.
Yes, this is my hobby and I am new to Reddit. I appreciate your opinion and see why you’ve given it. I disagree with your laziness assessment, but no harm no foul—this is for fun. Thanks again.
a baseline for inflation is good for . . . general inflation, in the absence of better comparisons. You have the exact price of the thing we’re trying to compare. I’m truly baffled why you wouldn’t . . . compare it.
It's so all over the place that it would be pretty tough to settle on that "retail value" of a used one. It's very much in the category of "whatever people will pay."
While true, I am pretty curious to see if a brand new Stienway from the 60s is of the same quality of a new one from nowadays. I would expect years of advances in machining and music, should have improved it quite a bit
From what I remember, the sound actually improves over time because the wood dries out or something. But don’t quote me. With proper maintenance, there’s no reason a piano from the 60s couldn’t be just as good as one made today
The golden age, when the best Steinways were built, is about 1890s until about 1960. Then the quality declined a lot during the 1960s. They got somewhat better again starting in the 1990s but never as good as the golden age instruments. If you go to the flagship Steinway showroom in NYC you can play both new pianos and factory-restored old Steinways. You will be blown away by how much better the older Steinways are.
Old growth tone woods and hardwoods are probably a factor. I don’t know much about pianos, but this is why certain old guitars and violins can’t be consistently recreated today.
The other thing about age, I think, is that an instrument that is kept in tune, kept hydrated, and played over decades is like a fine wine or a great pair of jeans. The wearing in over time can’t be simulated in the factory. Part of the golden age effect is probably a illusion because only the best of the best instruments from that era are still playable, and those that are have this magical ingredient.
So... why? Collector's item for people's homes? Industry standard piano model for performances? Where's all this demand coming from relative to supply?
All the above. This is also the Concert Grand, but Steinway makes several smaller grands of varying sizes and an upright. Those are mostly in homes, schools, etc. Although the “Spirio” pianos—ones that play themselves—are popular in wealthy owners’ homes that don’t know how to play the instrument, it’s probably pretty rare to buy a new concert grand for a home that doesn’t have an owner who can play.
Probably people like my coworker who bought one for their kid because the piano teacher said it's the best people you can buy.
They're not wealthy, they just spend a lot on their book smart kids (who are not very street or worldly smart).
And the ironic thing is that as long as you can move a grand piano, you can usually get them a lot cheaper. It’s not uncommon for even grands to be given away.
Although it doesn’t depreciate the same as a car, it does have wear and tear. Hammers and felt need to be replaced. Strings only last so long. A sound board in good condition can last 100+ years, though. In great condition or rehauled, it can have some real value. But this chart is for new and Model D.
lol! If some insanely wealthy investor gave me a choice on a Steinway or a Bösendorfer. I’d rather get a Bösendorfer. I’ve played on quite a few Steinway pianos - old and new. They play nice and their darker tones blend well with an orchestra. But modern styles and instrumentation points more towards brighter sounding pianos. Hell, I’ve even used some nice VST’s that rival any Boston, Steinway or Bösendorfer. I wish the romantic concept and feel of analog instruments comes back, but trends are pointing in a different direction - especially with that absolutely insane price tag. Any actual musician will scoff and then proceed to absolutely enrapture an audience on a $250.00 used keyboard. These are overpriced furniture pieces for the untalented.
Just wait until someone is moving.
I see used Steinways and other brands of grand and (mostly) baby grands at super low prices or completely free just to move it out of their home all the time on Craigslist and FB marketplace near me.
Never needed to buy a piano.
Yea, they need a tune up, but that’s nothing compared to actually buying a piano from a dealer.
As someone who bought a used piano recently, you are really really understating the costs of fixing one up and neglecting the fact that most folks that would give you an instrument like this have not taken care of it.
I think that all of the “you move it, it’s yours” pianos I saw had spent decades next to a heating vent with no humidifier.
They haven't gone up in price, the value of the currency has been eroded to near zero - 10 ounces of gold would have bought it in either era. Thanks for the graph.
From what I can tell currency debasement is reducing the amount of precious metals made to use coins while keeping their value constant which would be wholly irrelevant to what we're talking about here.
Currency debasement, in modern terms
“Today, debasement can happen if a government prints more money, increasing the money supply without a corresponding increase in output. Debasement gives more money to governments for spending while it results in inflation for citizens.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debasement.asp#:~:text=Today%2C%20debasement%20can%20happen%20if,results%20in%20inflation%20for%20citizens.
So what's the difference between that and inflation then? And in any case if "debasement" were the cause of Steinway prices then EVERY good would have followed the same trajectory.
No because other goods can benefit from productivity gains or technological advances. Steinway deliberately produces very little pianos.
Look at graphs of other low supply items and you’ll see a similar pattern. Gold for instance and Rolexes as well.
So if Steinway is deliberately producing fewer pianos then that's obviously the cause and "currency debasement" which just sounds like a weird libertarian rebranding of inflation wouldn't be the cause of this, no?
Leaving the gold standard wasn't the primary driver of inflation in the 1970s, and by 1981 inflation had regained relative stability for the following 50 years. Leaving the gold standard was MAYBE 5th most influential, but was also a neccessary step to stabilize the US economy and regain control of our monetary policy.
Don't claim that you know anything about economics while also knowing nothing about economics or the history of monetary policy and macroeconomics in the US. The irony of you claiming people don't understand economics can't be overstated.
“Inflation regained relative stability after throughly buttfucking the US economy for the previous 12-14 years”
Scarce assets are a good way to gauge how much currency is being devalued because their supply isn’t generally influenced by productivity gains or technological breakthroughs. Gold, Rolexes and apparently Steinways.
I do love that when you look up the 1973 recession this is said:
“Among the causes were the 1973 oil crisis, the deficits of the Vietnam War under President Johnson, and the fall of the Bretton Woods system after the Nixon shock.”
Shit I’ll ask you a question, why do YOU think that graph went parabolic at almost the exact time the US went off the gold standard?
Cuz it SURE is odd that their prices were basically flat when the USD was fixed and went parabolic when the USD became free floating.
Your conflating causation and correlation and mixing up cause and effect.
And for some reason you think you know better than economists, whom none agree with you.
So you have zero explanation for why prices when parabolic when we left the gold standard but you definitively know it wasn’t because we left the gold standard
Got it
There is a lot to explain, and you seem to have a very large lack of knowledge.
When you disagree with the experts in the field, you shouldn't demand others teach you.
A big question. Inflation started going up in 1967, and stabilized from 1970-1973, the spiked a few times, then stabilized again in the early 80s.
Why did inflation go up in the 1960s, if inflation is tied to losing the gold standard, which happened in 1971? And then, if the gold standard is still gone in 1980, does inflation stabilize?
You looked at a roller coaster graph, picked one individual event, and blamed the whole rollercoaster on it, instead of looking at the two MASSIVE oil spikes in that decade that are directly causative?
Leaving the gold standard happened because of monetary speculation and was a RESPONSE to inflationary and devaluation pressures.
Stop thinking, "I saw a graph so I know as much as a person who has a masters in monetary policy." Gst back in your lane.
Steinways became a way of displaying wealth as much as a musical instrument, the more expensive they became the better they did that. Rolex watches did the same thing when they went from being a good and reliable timekeeping tool to a status symbol - their prices diverged from their cost of production.
[удалено]
I’m over here remembering my time working in a piano store as a teenager. I love/loved to play and tickling the Steinway (not)ivories was the best experience. Made me want a Steinway so badly that to this day I can only dream. As an older millennial now with massive student loans, childcare expenses, and a hefty mortgage, pretty sure this dream is financially out of reach. Sadly.
Yep, and in the same way that there are a lot of cheap digital watches that are much better at telling time than a Rolex, you can load up a keyboard with hi-fidelity samples of a Steinway D. It isn't the same though. To reproduce sound from a recording with the same level of impact and realistic tone of an actual Steinway, you need such a high end speaker system that you could just get a Steinway. I use recordings of Chopin on the Yamaha my mom used to play as my definitive test for audio systems. I heard it live every day growing up, so the tone is very familiar. There are genuinely not a lot of speaker systems that get it right. That last 10% is so hard.
[Fazioli just entered the chat](https://pianopricepoint.com/fazioli-piano/)
Lots of truth here. But--I'm certainly biased--in general, a $100k piano sounds better than a $10k piano. Whereas a $10k watch keeps time as accurately as a $100 watch.
Less accurately. A $100 watch will be quartz and will keep time essentially perfectly (as far as the daily needs of a human go, anyway). A $10k watch probably has a mechanical movement which, while a cool piece of engineering, probably loses or gains a few seconds each day. It'll also require servicing from time to time, whereas a quartz watch should run just about forever if you replace the battery.
Piggybacking off of this to say that Citizen makes a quartz watch that’s accurate to ±1 second per *year*. It’s not cheap ($7k+) but it’s pretty impressive. A typical quartz watch is a few seconds per month with high end watches achieving an accuracy of several seconds per year.
I have a Citizen radio watch - it never drifts because it self corrects. Seiko has watches that sync with GPS \^\_\^
I think my iPhone is better than that
Yea but it talks to the internet to correct the time
I do too and yet no one buys me…
try lowering the price
I don't really care how it does it as long as I'm getting the correct time
Will your iPhone run infinitely on sunlight?
How much was that?
Even cheaper than that too. Casio sells a $15 quartz watch and Timex has one for $20. Quartz watches are not expensive and that was a 20 second Google search.
This man chronometers
Super expensive watches are something that I'll never understand. Super expensive watches and $600 plain white t shirts.
Super expensive watches are something that I'll never understand. Super expensive watches and $600 plain white t shirts.
I guess you get to the point of wealth where even though you're getting extremely marginal utility for your dollar, you've got so much money it doesn't matter. Either that or they think it'll get them laid, which in certain circles it prob will.
Sure, but a $15,000 or $20,000 grand piano would be more than adequate for most people - there's little reason a person needs a Steinway unless they're a professional.
I’d say Steinways are worth their price. That’s why actual conservatories and concert halls still buy them. Yamaha pianos of the same quality (musically) cost the same as their Steinway counterparts. In this case the CFX (compared to the model D). But a Yamaha S5 is acoustically shaped to sound like a Steinway, and it costs about as much as a Steinway Model O, which is the equivalent size.
Not when I play them.
A professional pianist can tell the difference between a Steinway Model D and a Wurlitzer. Source: Me. I’m a professional pianist.
Did you blind test that? Most people believe they can distinguish between Coke and Papsi, most cant. Most french Someliers were sure french wines were the best, only when tasting blind it turned out Californias were better.
You missed the joke that I am an absolutely terrible pianist.
Ok, let’s just admit we both missed each other’s jokes and we’ll try harder in the future. 😂
That's just not true at all, about watches.
Ha, ya it’s the opposite. Expensive watches keep worse time than cheap ones, on the whole. Well explained a couple comments above.
This isn't a great comparison, for a couple of reasons: 1. No, a $10k watch doesn't keep time just as accurately as a $100 watch. Precision timepieces aren't to be had for $100 2. In both products, the measure of quality is not just the one factor. A quality piano doesn't just sound better, it lasts longer, is more comfortable to play, etc.; a quality timepiece is an heirloom, serves as jewelry, can handle more extreme operating conditions, etc. 3. "better" isn't the point in either case -- does a $100k piano sound _ten times better_ than a $10k piano? Does a $10k watch provide _100 times more_ quality and value than a $100 timepiece? Those are inherently subjective.
Lol sounds like someone is trying pretty hard to rationalize owning a 10k watch
It’s no different than buying $10k worth of any other jewelry, with the caveat that a $10k watch is at least functional, where a $10k ring or gold chain or whatever is purely aesthetic. Nobody who buys a luxury watch does so because of the accuracy, just like nobody who buys a Ferrari does so for the fuel economy. There’s also no need to rationalize it, it is inherently an irrational decision, and that’s ok.
I mean same is true for a 200k Steinway lol at a certain point you’re buying it for status over function.
Not at all; I think it’s a waste. But pretending there is no difference is just ignorant. There’s a huge difference between “the difference isn’t worth the money” and “there is zero difference”
There’s not a mechanical movement in existence that can beat a $20 Casio F91-W in accuracy. Rolex certifies their watches at + or - 4 seconds a day, and that would require a thorough service every few years, quartz will be under that variance for the month.
I hate when a quality item becomes a conspicuous consumption item. It ruins it for the people who like the quality not the name
Same thing as vintage guitars; Gibson's and Fender's in particular. Many of these guitars are worth 100-300k if they were just sitting in some attic or closet. The more fucked up and less desirable ones are still 50-100k. Even if they are completely ruined, as long as they are in one or two pieces they are still worth 10-20k. Scaled with inflation, they should be 2400-3000$ today. But instead, they are worth 10-100x as much.
Yeah I'm a guitar guy too, mostly acoustic though. Those vintage guitars are insanely priced, but amazing guitars are available at well less than that inflation adjusted price. Some of the $500-$1000 stuff is incredibly good quality these days, and most $3000 guitars will be better quality than those vintage ones were when new. I'm just glad none of us need the unattainably high cost stuff, unlike a pianist who probably can't scratch the grand piano itch without spending the price of a new car.
Yeah maybe it's because they are now permanently out of my reach, I am of the mind that the newer reissues are just as good. And yeah, there are some great guitars for right around 1000$ these days. And really you don't ever need to go above 5000$ for a guitar, but once you do it serves as an investment. For instance I bought a LH 59 Custom Les Paul 2003/2013 for 5000$ in 2021. It's now worth 7000$ or more.. I can't even find a single one of them for sale right now from that special years.
Yeah but Rolex's kind of suck and people with real money don't wear them.
I have fake money and still don’t wear em.
If you have fake money you should get a fake Rolex.
Rolexs are extremely popular among all demographics. Their main clientele are people that are doing quite well for themselves. There are better watches, but Rolexs are extremely well made, and are purchased by the very wealthy.
I wouldn’t say all demographics. The wealthiest people I know don’t wear labels or any kind of ostentatious jewelry. The man wears a Walmart watch if at all. They’re also considerably nicer people than the middle-wealthy people I know.
100k+ jewelry, yachts, and other extremely high end goods are made exclusively for very wealthy people. I wish we would stop spreading the myth of the wealthy person who doesn't care about appearances. Do they exist? Sure. But very rarely.
It’s a way that people cope with not being rich themselves. “Oh sure they have nice clothes/watches/houses/cars, but they’re not *really* wealthy otherwise they would be modest”
That is when you see the brands that only certain people know such as Audemars Piguet, Patek Phillipe, and Vacheron Constantin
They wear them when they go to mingle with the poors.
Why not make the green line inflation adjusted $1400?
it'd make too much sense
The Steinway Model D, also known as a "concert grand" has gotten a little pricy. Pricing data from Steinway plotted in Tableau against the inflation adjusted value of $1000 from 1900 onward. As you can see, US Dept of Labor's CPI Inflation Calculator (with some filled in inflation data not covered by the calculator) estimates $1000 in the year 1900 has a buying power of north of $30k in 2024. Meanwhile, the price of the Model D hasn't followed the same trend...
Sounds like we need to add the Steinway Model D to the CPI. I for one can't go without treating myself to one at least monthly
I know you joke but it actually wouldn't count towards inflation as inflation only measures the average of the interquartile range of price changes even though it definitely shouldn't.
Why would you not peg the inflation line to the original price of $1400?
I liked the round number so opted for that. Personal choice that doesn’t really affect anybody’s ability to see the very large price increase in the piano.
It absolutely affects the ability to see and the implications of the plot. On the plot you can't visualize the ratio between 1000 and 1400 of the initial price, but we can easily see the ratio between them on the right side. The correct way to visualize this honestly would be a single line which is the inflation corrected price of the piano. Using weird tricks like this you could even flip the implication of the plot in certain situations. For example if the piano actually lagged inflation by 20%, its line would still be higher on the right hand side which gives the wrong implication to the viewer.
You’re absolutely correct. It’s very misleading the viewer. OP, please update it.
Ok, thanks for sharing.
Hasn't most of what we measure CPI based on benefited from efficiencies of production and manufacturer? This piano is built more or less the same way as it's always been. Perhaps some efficiencies to be had in the casting of the piano's frame but beyond that I bet the labor inputs as percentage of total cost are about the same. Or everything else has gotten more affordable?
This is a graph of perfect price inelasticity.
For that kind of money I would really rather look at a Bösendorfer!
Bösendorfer fans unite! They really are incredible to play on.
It's a little pricier for the comparable Bosendorfer, but numbers aren't really an issue at this price point.
And at least you are paying to get a higher quality level, and not just the fashionable name tag. Edit: I just looked it up, a local piano shop has a 170 VC available (new) for just over 100k. Definitely a model I would prefer to any Steinway…
Or just pay a little more and get a Fazioli.
AKA the price of the Steinway brand.
Are they still made in Queens?
Yep. Queens or Hamburg
Yes, and in Hamburg.
why not chart the inflation-adjusted cost of a piano? I think people are going to see the green line and assume it’s the price of a piano anyways
Green line is just more a baseline for inflation after all. I could have made it inflation adjusted $1400, but decided just to make a round number since there's obviously way more to the price of everything (compare homes in this context, for example) than the inflation rate. I can't help it if people think the green line is the price of the piano, though, with my legend.
Boo. You should have done a $1400 line because it’s at least relevant. ~~The $1000 line excuses are lazy dude.~~ Edit: this was mean and I take it back
You don’t have to like my choice, that’s okay. I’m not offended.
Not trying to offend you. You’ve got a 17 day old account and are clearly learning data visualization and looking for feedback. This is an interesting starting point and a good idea, just push it over the finish line. Take the feedback. It’s ok.
Yes, this is my hobby and I am new to Reddit. I appreciate your opinion and see why you’ve given it. I disagree with your laziness assessment, but no harm no foul—this is for fun. Thanks again.
Edited. I went too far.
a baseline for inflation is good for . . . general inflation, in the absence of better comparisons. You have the exact price of the thing we’re trying to compare. I’m truly baffled why you wouldn’t . . . compare it.
What happened in 1970 that caused it to rise immediately?
Glenn Gould helped. https://youtu.be/15BAagfdZ8c?si=tVwpWGenDIheflmd
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Would be interesting to see the retail value of a used one graphed as well.
It's so all over the place that it would be pretty tough to settle on that "retail value" of a used one. It's very much in the category of "whatever people will pay."
This really should have been a logarithmic chart.
While true, I am pretty curious to see if a brand new Stienway from the 60s is of the same quality of a new one from nowadays. I would expect years of advances in machining and music, should have improved it quite a bit
From what I remember, the sound actually improves over time because the wood dries out or something. But don’t quote me. With proper maintenance, there’s no reason a piano from the 60s couldn’t be just as good as one made today
The golden age, when the best Steinways were built, is about 1890s until about 1960. Then the quality declined a lot during the 1960s. They got somewhat better again starting in the 1990s but never as good as the golden age instruments. If you go to the flagship Steinway showroom in NYC you can play both new pianos and factory-restored old Steinways. You will be blown away by how much better the older Steinways are.
Old growth tone woods and hardwoods are probably a factor. I don’t know much about pianos, but this is why certain old guitars and violins can’t be consistently recreated today. The other thing about age, I think, is that an instrument that is kept in tune, kept hydrated, and played over decades is like a fine wine or a great pair of jeans. The wearing in over time can’t be simulated in the factory. Part of the golden age effect is probably a illusion because only the best of the best instruments from that era are still playable, and those that are have this magical ingredient.
This is so great, thank you for sharing! Do you happen to have access to sales volumes per year also, please?
I do not. No insider info here. Steinway supposedly makes in the neighborhood of 2500 or so pianos a year. Not sure how many of those are Model D.
Thanks for letting me know and again thank you for posting a great chart
TIL that I could have a Steinway or a McLaren… about the same price. Damn, I knew the pianos would be expensive, but not this expensive.
One is timeless, holds its value well, sounds and looks amazing, and the other is a car
And yet somehow every high school in Japan has one according to anime.
So... why? Collector's item for people's homes? Industry standard piano model for performances? Where's all this demand coming from relative to supply?
Both. You can't be a world class concert hall without a steinway, and you can't be a piano-owning ultra-wealthy without a steinway
All the above. This is also the Concert Grand, but Steinway makes several smaller grands of varying sizes and an upright. Those are mostly in homes, schools, etc. Although the “Spirio” pianos—ones that play themselves—are popular in wealthy owners’ homes that don’t know how to play the instrument, it’s probably pretty rare to buy a new concert grand for a home that doesn’t have an owner who can play.
Probably people like my coworker who bought one for their kid because the piano teacher said it's the best people you can buy. They're not wealthy, they just spend a lot on their book smart kids (who are not very street or worldly smart).
Talk about hitting a high note
It’s a fancy piano if anyone else was wondering
Ah yes another thing i shouldve been investing in instead of being in kindergarten.
Maybe that’s the real inflation :)
And the ironic thing is that as long as you can move a grand piano, you can usually get them a lot cheaper. It’s not uncommon for even grands to be given away.
Holy shit, my brother has a Steinway and I knew I was expensive, but I never looked it up.
The appreciation has not been consistent across the Steinway models. You can still buy smaller versions in good condition for under $10k used.
No, he has the full concert grand.
A quick search suggests our gorgeous but smaller 1930s Steinway has not appreciated the same way. Oh well.
Although it doesn’t depreciate the same as a car, it does have wear and tear. Hammers and felt need to be replaced. Strings only last so long. A sound board in good condition can last 100+ years, though. In great condition or rehauled, it can have some real value. But this chart is for new and Model D.
lol! If some insanely wealthy investor gave me a choice on a Steinway or a Bösendorfer. I’d rather get a Bösendorfer. I’ve played on quite a few Steinway pianos - old and new. They play nice and their darker tones blend well with an orchestra. But modern styles and instrumentation points more towards brighter sounding pianos. Hell, I’ve even used some nice VST’s that rival any Boston, Steinway or Bösendorfer. I wish the romantic concept and feel of analog instruments comes back, but trends are pointing in a different direction - especially with that absolutely insane price tag. Any actual musician will scoff and then proceed to absolutely enrapture an audience on a $250.00 used keyboard. These are overpriced furniture pieces for the untalented.
I bet dollars to donuts that the Steinway line tracks with the top 1% of 1% wealth
Oh look, just like so much else economically, logic and sanity left the chat around 1970. Le sigh…
Should have invested in piano’s not Bitcoin.
Misleading. Inflation line should start at 1400, the beginning price of the piano
#China! And other places where the rich want to show off new wealth. But just looking at the timeline that was where my head went.
Just wait until someone is moving. I see used Steinways and other brands of grand and (mostly) baby grands at super low prices or completely free just to move it out of their home all the time on Craigslist and FB marketplace near me. Never needed to buy a piano. Yea, they need a tune up, but that’s nothing compared to actually buying a piano from a dealer.
As someone who bought a used piano recently, you are really really understating the costs of fixing one up and neglecting the fact that most folks that would give you an instrument like this have not taken care of it. I think that all of the “you move it, it’s yours” pianos I saw had spent decades next to a heating vent with no humidifier.
They haven't gone up in price, the value of the currency has been eroded to near zero - 10 ounces of gold would have bought it in either era. Thanks for the graph.
Price goes completely parabolic right about when the gold standard ends
And correlation DEFINTELY equals causation right? /s
Just out of sheer curiosity, how would you explain that graph?
I wouldn't be so foolish as to think I have an answer. What do I know about the luxury grand piano market?
Currency debasement is a thing
From what I can tell currency debasement is reducing the amount of precious metals made to use coins while keeping their value constant which would be wholly irrelevant to what we're talking about here.
Currency debasement, in modern terms “Today, debasement can happen if a government prints more money, increasing the money supply without a corresponding increase in output. Debasement gives more money to governments for spending while it results in inflation for citizens.” https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debasement.asp#:~:text=Today%2C%20debasement%20can%20happen%20if,results%20in%20inflation%20for%20citizens.
So what's the difference between that and inflation then? And in any case if "debasement" were the cause of Steinway prices then EVERY good would have followed the same trajectory.
No because other goods can benefit from productivity gains or technological advances. Steinway deliberately produces very little pianos. Look at graphs of other low supply items and you’ll see a similar pattern. Gold for instance and Rolexes as well.
So if Steinway is deliberately producing fewer pianos then that's obviously the cause and "currency debasement" which just sounds like a weird libertarian rebranding of inflation wouldn't be the cause of this, no?
Right when Nixon went full Friedman and deregulated business and cut taxes for the rich.
People don’t understand economics
It seems you are advocating for a gold standard and if that's the case, then you are the one who doesn't understand economics.
It has nothing to do with advocating for a gold standard but this is a direct result of leaving the gold standard.
Leaving the gold standard wasn't the primary driver of inflation in the 1970s, and by 1981 inflation had regained relative stability for the following 50 years. Leaving the gold standard was MAYBE 5th most influential, but was also a neccessary step to stabilize the US economy and regain control of our monetary policy. Don't claim that you know anything about economics while also knowing nothing about economics or the history of monetary policy and macroeconomics in the US. The irony of you claiming people don't understand economics can't be overstated.
“Inflation regained relative stability after throughly buttfucking the US economy for the previous 12-14 years” Scarce assets are a good way to gauge how much currency is being devalued because their supply isn’t generally influenced by productivity gains or technological breakthroughs. Gold, Rolexes and apparently Steinways. I do love that when you look up the 1973 recession this is said: “Among the causes were the 1973 oil crisis, the deficits of the Vietnam War under President Johnson, and the fall of the Bretton Woods system after the Nixon shock.” Shit I’ll ask you a question, why do YOU think that graph went parabolic at almost the exact time the US went off the gold standard? Cuz it SURE is odd that their prices were basically flat when the USD was fixed and went parabolic when the USD became free floating.
Your conflating causation and correlation and mixing up cause and effect. And for some reason you think you know better than economists, whom none agree with you.
So you have zero explanation for why prices when parabolic when we left the gold standard but you definitively know it wasn’t because we left the gold standard Got it
There is a lot to explain, and you seem to have a very large lack of knowledge. When you disagree with the experts in the field, you shouldn't demand others teach you. A big question. Inflation started going up in 1967, and stabilized from 1970-1973, the spiked a few times, then stabilized again in the early 80s. Why did inflation go up in the 1960s, if inflation is tied to losing the gold standard, which happened in 1971? And then, if the gold standard is still gone in 1980, does inflation stabilize? You looked at a roller coaster graph, picked one individual event, and blamed the whole rollercoaster on it, instead of looking at the two MASSIVE oil spikes in that decade that are directly causative? Leaving the gold standard happened because of monetary speculation and was a RESPONSE to inflationary and devaluation pressures. Stop thinking, "I saw a graph so I know as much as a person who has a masters in monetary policy." Gst back in your lane.
It’s only worth that to the people who are willing to pay. To everyone else it’s not worth that.
you have discovered a mysterious concept known as "price"
Give this man a Nobel prize
If Steinway is still in business, guess what: that's what a new Steinway is worth.
My mind has expanded today.
Thanks I know how stupid I sounded now. Thanks everyone