Yamaha U1 or U3 Advice needed - new or used..

[emmak]

We need a piano for my husband - Grade 8, Oxbridge music degree and composer and 2 tiny girls to learn on. Music room is about 12x12 so I am a bit concerned U3 would be a bit loud. Dual demands of perfectionist husband and tiny children with sticky fingers learning piano makes us lean towards used Yamaha U1 or U3 but local dealer is asking 3k for 1970's vintage models - when we can get a new one for 3.5k...

Any thoughts from the experts?
TIA
Emma

[PianoGuy]

3k is too much for a '70s one.

3.5k is too little for a new one.

3k should buy you a nice unmolested late '80s, early '90s U1. A new one for less than 4.5k is suspiciously cheap. It may be a grey import, or it may be a badly or non prepared official UK model. If grey import, make sure the dealer has a spotless reputation, if genuine UK model, buy elsewhere for more money because the supplier is skimping on prep-work. Lazy dealers don't deserve your money.

Note that a U1N is not a real U1, but a Kemble in drag.

Read:

This thread

And this one

Question:
Before posting questions on internet forums, do people actually bother to read previous posts?

[Barrie Heaton]

Question:
Before posting questions on internet forums, do people actually bother to read previous posts?

Search the site is used a lot from other pages which will bring up forum pages, but not search the forum itself used very little. However, the FAQs are read perhaps a FAQ on Yamahas

Fancy doing one


Barrie

[emmak]

You know what? I posted because I couldn't find an answer to my specific question and was looking for advice from what I perceived as a friendly forum. I'll just crawl away now shall I.

BTW, u1 or u3 in the search the forum brings up zero postings. Which is why I posted.

[PianoGuy]

You know, you're absolutely right!

"U1" and "U3" brings up precisely zero.

My humblest apologies.

PGx

[emmak]

Apology accepted and thanks for your previous advice. Any thoughts on U1 or U3?

Emma

[Barrie Heaton]

Search the site bring up 4,580 results for U1, that a lot of digging. However, if you search the forum on Yamaha U1 Search found 334 matches

PHPBB search is not brilliant Even changing the title of this topic and putting the U1 upfront make no difference


Search the site on U1 U3 is better more relevant
topics are at the top.


Barrie,

[D Minor]

I did a search on just U3 before I posted about the keys problem.

I did find a posting about the three different types of people that purchase pianos. I now fall into cat 3.

For the price discussed am I'm right in assuming for around 4.5K - 5.5K the best new pianos are the U3, Kawai K3,Schimmel 116 and Vogel 115 ( these two being entry level models )?

Any other contenders?

[PianoGuy]

Apology accepted and thanks for your previous advice. Any thoughts on U1 or U3?

Emma

Well, the U3 is certainly a better piano than the U1 owing to its extra height and string-length, but the trade-off is the bulk and monolithic appearance, so you'll find that even though they are more expensive when new, that differential almost disappears when you're talking about used instruments. Fewer people will devote that much visual space in a room for a piano, and the proportions of the U1 architecturally are better.

I reckon the best value you'll get would be a 5-million serial number U3. This will have depreciated to about 3.2K for an import and (if you can find one!!) about 3.6k to 4k for a UK market one. Deduct a mere 200 quid for a similarly aged U1.

If you feel you can use the extra power and richness of sound then go for a U3, but a U1 is probably the better investment if you think you'll ever want to trade up, simply because there is a bigger market for them.

There are so many imported U1s and U3s about that only the very cleanest and the best vintages are remotely interesting to a dealer to trade back in at a later date. UK market models will always be worth more, and there are some dealers who will even refuse imports, some out of snobbery, some because they don't want to get caught with a poor one, and some out of a genuine belief that they are somehow 'inferior'. They are certainly not inferior per se but they are without exception untraceable and have an unverifiable history. The most competent dealers will however be able to pick the best examples with confidence.

In the imported market there are basically four main types:

Unrestored ones: They are plentiful and early ones should be very cheap. If they're not, you can rest assured that they were to the dealer who's trying to sell them on to you. Older ones of serial number prior to 2 million are the worst. Claims that "Yamaha quality was best in their older models" is utter rubbish, as are claims that they were "so much more expensive in the sixties, and regarded as luxury goods". Well, everything was comparatively more expensive then, and ask yourself whether you would have bought a Toyota in the sixties either. No. Thought not. Japanese goods were bought largely because they were cheap, not because of inherent quality. That quality improved drastically very quickly though, and later examples, up to 3,999,999 were indeed very good indeed, but the trade likes models in the 4 and 5 million serial number ranges best, which will often have very little wear. I would personally favour a nice, lightly used and original example of a U1 or U3 in the 5 million range above most types, and by and large since the Japanese policy is one of "continual improvement" the newer the better.
UK Dealers buy these by "Grade" like Bernard Matthews buys his unfortunate turkeys. Grade A are free-range organic. Cosmetically and mechanically good usually having been used in Japanese family homes. Grade B don't quite cut it, and within the category of Grade C lie the poorest bird-flu infected broilers, often sourced from schools and music colleges. They will be high mileage and it's these that give imported Yamahas a bad name. Make no mistake, there are some dogs about.

Dealer "reconditioned": The quality of these will depend purely on the standard of restoration by the dealer. Typically the older examples will have needed spring-cords replaced, but some will have had re-stringing and even soundboard work. Pianos in the previous category will have been used as raw material. The term "reconditioned" covers a multitude of meanings to different people, and it is vital that the dealer is actually capable of decent work. The quality of dealer restored pianos is therefore variable to say the least.

Factory rebuilt: There are a number of large workshops in Japan and Europe that specialise in the rebuilding of Yamaha pianos. Rumour has it that Yamaha even sanction this work themselves in Japan, and assist in export. This makes sense to me, since for nearly every new piano sold in Japan, one is taken in for part exchange, and the part exchanges have to be disposed of. Nearly impossible in a market which insists on new goods. It makes financial sense and also keeps them out of Japanese landfill I suppose! Quality of this work is often good, and the best should be indistinguishable from new.

As-new: Actually, these are often brand-new and some even have serial numbers well in advance of new UK-destined models. They differ in detail (although the U3 models often have a celeste instead of sostenuto) and should be priced accordingly. Buying one of these also is advisable only if the dealer has a spotless reputation for quality because there will be no Yamaha UK warranty. The warranty will be dealer supplied.

We haven't even touched on the various different model numbers given to U1s and 3s in Japan, such as "U10Bl" or U30Bl" or the bewildering "MC301", but suffice it to say that where possible, the best bet is to buy a definitive U1 or U3. That way there's less confusion about what it is when you want to sell.....

Good luck!!

PGx

[D Minor]

Well, the U3 is certainly a better piano than the U1 owing to its extra height and string-length, but the trade-off is the bulk and monolithic appearance,

But I have a very nice, maroon ( to match my piano stool ) velvet table runner on the top. I find it breaks up the monolithic ( fab word) appearance.

Seriously, thanks very much for your information.

And I apologise to Emma for hi-jacking her thread.

[emmak]

Thankyou for the very informative posts piano guy. We have decided on a second hand U3 and have sourced a 4.5 million serial japanese import - close enough?

[PianoGuy]

Excellent choice!!

Enjoy!

[emmak]

Just an update for future thread readers, the U3 we got is excellent, in fantastic condition, hardly played. Serial 4.4 million, cost us 2k from Little & Lampert, who were really good.

[PianoGuy]

2k is very good for such a young U3.

Good deal!

[D Minor]

Yes that is a really good deal.

Pity Little & Lampert are based down south.

[WinstonChurchill]

PianoGuy -- I'm interested in what you've had to say about U3s and U1s and the pros and cons of both, in this and in other threads, but I'd like to know what specifically you have against older models, other than that they'll potentially have more mileage than newer ones (and there's no guarantee of that).

I'll declare my bias up front: a while back, I bought an imported U3 in the 1.5 million neighbourhood, for around £3k. Before I bought, I shopped around and played a lot of Yahamas (and a lot of everything else) in a lot of shops, and for my money, the piano I picked has a richer tone and a nicer touch than anything else I played, included much newer U3s (and much older Bechsteins, Grotrians, etc). These are highly subjective judgements, I'll grant you, but there you have it.

Over and above touch and tone, the piano I bought was in great shape, less a few minor scuffs on the case work, with loops intact, and appeared to me -- going back to cabinet making days somewhat here -- to be of sounder construction than many newer pianos I looked at. Furthermore, I've heard it suggested (without having investigated in great detail myself) that newer pianos incorporate a great many more plastic and aluminium parts in the action, and I know that some people see this as a definite negative (though I suppose that just as many see it as a positive).

So my question is, why do you specifically privelege the newest U3s over older ones? Is there anything specific about build or design or whatever that in your opinion guarantees better quality from a newer model? It seems to me that you're rather biased against older models without really giving us much justification for that. To my mind, the proof is in the playing -- and I have to say that the great touch and tone of my older U3 has made it worth every penny.

[PianoGuy]

PianoGuy -- I'm interested in what you've had to say about U3s and U1s and the pros and cons of both, in this and in other threads, but I'd like to know what specifically you have against older models, other than that they'll potentially have more mileage than newer ones (and there's no guarantee of that).

Hello Mr. Churchill. Can I first say that I'm a great fan of what you did for us in the War.

Your first point has been answered by yourself. An older piano is likely to be higher mileage, although there's no guarantee of that as you say. The key word here is "likely".

Over and above touch and tone, the piano I bought was in great shape, less a few minor scuffs on the case work, with loops intact, and appeared to me -- going back to cabinet making days somewhat here -- to be of sounder construction than many newer pianos I looked at. Furthermore, I've heard it suggested (without having investigated in great detail myself) that newer pianos incorporate a great many more plastic and aluminium parts in the action, and I know that some people see this as a definite negative (though I suppose that just as many see it as a positive).

Newer pianos certainly incorporate a bit more plastic than the older ones, specifically the jacks in the action, but this makes for a lightweight and strong component, and has proved very reliable. Everything else in the Yamaha action is wood, except in some cases the damper heads are on plastic drums. Furthermore, unlike some plastic piano parts, the Yamaha jacks have been in service for over 25 years with no known issues. The use of an aluminium beam is immaterial.

Casework of the U1/3 has always been solid, and there's little to distinguish vintages except for subtle styling. The casework quality of your 1.5M and a 5M (in my opinion the peak of desirability) differs little, although you are quite correct that older examples incorporate more real wood. Later generations with the damped fall are slightly less solid. Use of plastics in the pillasters and columns is such high quality that you'd never realise it.

So my question is, why do you specifically privelege the newest U3s over older ones? Is there anything specific about build or design or whatever that in your opinion guarantees better quality from a newer model? It seems to me that you're rather biased against older models without really giving us much justification for that. To my mind, the proof is in the playing -- and I have to say that the great touch and tone of my older U3 has made it worth every penny.

Firstly, if you're as delighted as you are with your older U3 that's great. You've obviously found an instrument to suit you, which is the most important thing.

Giving advice on a web forum is always difficult since the piano is never one that I've actually seen, so by definition all advice is based on a generalisation, and you'll also note that along with most of the people who dole out tips on here, I back it up with a very firm recommendation that you should always get a trusted independent tuner-technician (and not one employed by the dealer) to inspect any prospective purchase.

I always find that erring on the negative side protects against the erroneous claims of superiority of the "they don't build 'em like this anymore" variety by the myriad of semi-informed dealers, part-time dealers, dangerous hobbyists and eBayers that have sprung up in the last half decade attempting to peddle crap examples to the unwary. Most of these people sell early models because they're cheaply available from importers. Less than a grand can buy you one.

Worryingly, If you lack the funds to buy the genuine article even less will net you a Japanese "Yamaha Clone" from one of these charlatans with a name like Atlas, Toyo, Rolex or Pruthner. Now I'm not dissing these per se, actually some can be quite decent, but the key here is to buy cheaply. What I do have a problem with is the resale of the same at high prices.

There is a strong case for some of the "Factory Reconditioned" examples which are imported ready-restored, some of which are older models. These are re-polyestered, loops replaced and bass-strings changed, and can be found at good prices. There is no case at all for ones that are simply tarted up with a bottle of Mr.Sheen and a whisk with a dyson.

Unfortunately there is probably a handful of excellent dealers who genuinely choose excellent examples of all vintages who may well get caught in my crossfire, but if you do that all-important tuner-check you can wheadle out the few honest sellers from the bombsite car salesmen. If your U3 was bought for 3K from a reputable dealer with a warranty, a thorough overhaul or regulation as required, is totally up to scratch and the price included VAT, delivery and an initial tuning, then it was a reasonable buy. If you bought it out of the paper, from eBay or from a part-time non VAT registered dealer you paid too much.

In general though:

*Older U1/3s are very often more tired than newer ones.
*Dealers pay less for older examples, so they should be cheaper to the consumer.
*Action components from older models are unavailable as spare parts.
*Yamaha strings in older models can sound 'tubby'.
*There is an issue with rotting loops in older models.
*The scaling and frame casting have been improved over the years.
*Soundboard wood in later models appears to be straighter, closer and better selected.
*All pianos have a finite life. Even the most expensive Fazioli. It makes great sense to buy a piano where its lifespan stretches out into the future rather than half of it being firmly in the past.

Question answered?

[WinstonChurchill]

Well, yes, in fact...but I do think generalisations of all types are best avoided, despite that I see your argument for generalisation in a forum like this.

I must say I'm surprised by your comment about soundboards improving, as I had understood kiln-drying of lumber generally to have become more perfunctory all over ('computerised' or no -- whatever that means exactly).... I'll be damned.

For the record, I'm pleased to report that my particular instrument did come from a full-time dealer-restorer, on whom I've been keeping my eye for a couple of years...with a five year guarantee and any necessary regulation + replacement of bass strings as required...and of course delivery etc included.... I think I'd have been pretty suspicious otherwise.

Oh yeah, one more thing: that's Sir Winston to you.

[PianoGuy]

I must say I'm surprised by your comment about soundboards improving, as I had understood kiln-drying of lumber generally to have become more perfunctory all over ('computerised' or no -- whatever that means exactly).... I'll be damned.





Oh yeah, one more thing: that's Sir Winston to you.

Sorry your Grace....

No, you misunderstand me about the soundboards... The modern ones are just better from the off, they don't improve!

[WinstonChurchill]

Oh yeah, that's what I mean -- I'm surprised that they're better from the off....but I'm willing to take your word for it!