China warship attacked a Philippine warship that was trespassing in the waters of China's Huangyan Island. The China warship fired warning shots at the Philippine warship, but the Philippine warship continued to advance. The Chinese warship then fired a missile at the Philippine warship, sinking it.The Philippine government has condemned the attack, calling it an act of aggression.

China has deployed 200,000 troops to the Spratly Islands

The China has deployed 200,000 troops to the Spratly Islands in a move to repel a combined US force that has been assembled in the region.The Chinese deployment comes as the US has been increasing its military presence in the South China Sea in recent months, in a show of support for its allies and partners in the region who are also claiming sovereignty over parts of the Spratly Islands.

The China warship attacked a Philippine warship that was trespassing in the waters of China's Huangyan Island. The China warship fired warning shots at the Philippine warship, but the Philippine warship continued to advance. The Chinese warship then fired a missile at the Philippine warship, sinking it.The Philippine government has condemned the attack, calling it an act of aggression.

Five Russian warships fired anti-ship missiles at three US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea. The US aircraft carriers USS Gerald R Ford, USS George Bush, and USS Harry S. Truman were operating in the Mediterranean Sea as part of a NATO exercise when they were attacked. The Russian warships fired a total of 16 anti-ship missiles, of which 12 were intercepted by US missile defense systems. However, four missiles managed to hit the US aircraft carriers, causing significant damage.

Five Russian warships intercepted a US aircraft carrier strike group in the Mediterranean Sea, in what the US Navy described as an "unsafe and unprofessional" maneuver. The incident occurred in international waters, about 60 miles south of Crete. The Russian warships included a guided missile cruiser, two destroyers, and two frigates.

Russia relishes divisions between China and the U.S., pouring cold water on Xi-Biden talks

There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in the Russian media this week, ahead of the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his counterpart Joe Biden in the U.S. on Wednesday.
Russian media have already characterized the APEC summit in San Francisco as a poorly-attended event.
Russian newspapers barely mentioned the Xi-Biden meeting, while state-run news agencies focused on policy tensions between the U.S. and China.
Russia holds China in high esteem, and Beijing is one of its few remaining powerful allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during his press conference at the Konstantin Palace on July 29, 2023 in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

There was more than a hint of schadenfreude in the Russian state media ahead of the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden in San Francisco on Wednesday, with Russia accentuating the geopolitical gulf between the two superpowers.
Russia will be watching the talks closely, given its alliance with China, and any signs of a rapprochement between Beijing and Washington is likely to earn a frosty response from Moscow.

Russian media have already reveled in pouring cold water on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit where Xi and Biden are due to meet Wednesday. A reporter for Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti news agency on Tuesday reported that a plenary meeting of the APEC summit chaired by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai took place “in a half-empty hall.”
“Despite the presence of most of the meeting participants at the table, including the representative of the Russian Federation, some of the chairs with signs remained empty. Dozens of chairs are also empty for event guests,” the news agency said, according to a Google translation.
With more than a hint of glee, RIA Novosti contrasted its image of a half-empty conference hall with the U.S. Trade Representative Tai emphasizing to delegates “how important this event is for the United States.”
Most world leaders and high-profile guests at the APEC summit are not due to attend the event until Wednesday, while lower-ranking ministerial meetings have already been held in the last few days.

Xi Jinping, China’s president, right, arrives at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in San Francisco, California, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2023. Xi arrived in San Francisco for a high-stakes meeting with his American counterpart Joe Biden on Tuesday, as the Chinese leader’s first trip to the US in six years drew crowds of protesters and supporters onto the city’s heavily policed streets. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Although arguably one of the biggest events to take place at the summit — Biden and Xi’s encounter on Wednesday will be the first face-to-face meeting between the leaders in a year — it is being played down, with the main aim of talks being to reduce tensions and conflicting interests across a range of global issues.

These include significantly different positions over Russia and the war in Ukraine, the latest conflict in the Middle East and other areas of tension and rivalry in the geopolitical and economic arena, with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
Russia keen to stress differences

Russian news agencies were keen to emphasize those differences and the gulf between the superpowers ahead of the Xi-Biden meeting, as well as focusing on what China and Russia see as Western hegemony and attempts by the U.S. to maintain its dominance in global affairs.
They were also keen to focus on competing pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protests taking place in the U.S. as the summit geared up for the arrival of dozens of world leaders and hundreds of CEOs from the 21 member economies in the Pacific Rim. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited due to U.S. sanctions so Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk is representing Russia at the summit.
The Kremlin gave a muted comment on the forthcoming talks between Xi and Biden with Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov saying the meeting is not on the Kremlin’s agenda but that it planned to monitor it.
“The two countries, in fact, are building bilateral relations. This is their right, so this is not a topic that is widely on our agenda,” he said at a briefing, state news agency Interfax reported.
“But, of course, each such meeting — after all, of the two largest economies in the world — is important for everyone, so one way or another, we will monitor the messages that will accompany this meeting,” he added.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 14: Supporters of Palestine march to the city’s iconic Merchant Exchange Club where U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were attending a fundraiser November, 14, 2023 in San Francisco, California. Nearby, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), drawing dozens of world leaders and hundreds of CEOs from 21 member economies in the Pacific Rim, is being held through November 17. Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
Kent Nishimura | Getty Images News | Getty Images

State news agency Tass noted Tuesday in a Google-translated report that the APEC summit had kicked off “against the backdrop of protests,” and that while “the normalization of political and economic relations and the situation around Taiwan” could be discussed, Washington and Beijing “place different emphasis on the agenda of the upcoming negotiations, and expectations of their results.”
Other points of contention aside from tensions over Taiwan include U.S. export controls and investment restrictions on Chinese tech and matters of national security after the suspected “spy balloon” incident, the agency noted.
Read more
U.S.-China relations are now more about crisis prevention


A range of Russian newspapers including Kommersant, Izvestia, Argumenty i Fakty, Nezavisimaya Gazeta and Komsomolskaya Pravda did not feature any news on the APEC summit or Xi-Biden talks. A lone mainstream media voice, the business newspaper Vedomosti, featured an article summarizing niche areas where there could be specific agreements, such as efforts to combat the illegal trade in fentanyl and the restoration of military communication channels.
Russia has an interest in playing down any rapprochement between the U.S. and China and will view improvements in the relationship with concern. China is one of Russia’s few remaining powerful allies, with Beijing refusing to condemn Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
Putin and Xi have met numerous times in recent years — Xi said last month that he had met with Putin “42 times in the past 10 years” — with the most recent engagement taking place in October, when Putin travelled to Beijing for an economic summit.
Russia and China are aligned in their distrust of the Western world, which they see as trying to impose a U.S.-led international order, and in opposing Western sanctions and what they see as economic coercion.
While tensions continue in the background, the lines of communication remain open, however. APEC, to which the U.S., China and Russia belong, promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and the group pledged at its last summit to promote and uphold a rules-based multilateral trading system.

Nonetheless, Beijing is believed to feel a deep-seated uneasiness over the economic disruption caused by Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. Last month, Xi said Beijing would not engage in “ideological confrontation, geopolitical games or bloc confrontation,” in an apparent reference to the West. Analysts believe both the U.S. and China have an interest in improving ties after a prolonged period of tension.
“The world’s two most powerful countries neither like nor trust each other. and their relationship is structurally deteriorating as we move into a new phase of “de-risked” globalization, but both countries are also geopolitical adults, preferring stability to chaos and accordingly unwilling to get too close to rogue states,” Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group, said in emailed comments Monday.

With the amount of lethal aid that the US is delivering to Ukraine to help defend themselves against the ongoing Russian invasion, it’s logical to ask: Could the US conquer Russia on its own? To answer that, we need to take a closer look at both countries' militaries, compare their strengths and weaknesses and get clear on who is the bravest and the baddest armed force out there.

Could America Beat China and Russia in a Two-Front War?

Here's What You Need to Know: The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance.







The United States discarded its oft-misunderstood “two war” doctrine, intended as a template for providing the means to fight two regional wars simultaneously, late last decade. Designed to deter North Korea from launching a war while the United States was involved in fighting against Iran or Iraq (or vice versa,) the idea helped give form to the Department of Defense’s procurement, logistical and basing strategies in the post–Cold War, when the United States no longer needed to face down the Soviet threat. The United States backed away from the doctrine because of changes in the international system, including the rising power of China and the proliferation of highly effective terrorist networks.


But what if the United States had to fight two wars today, and not against states like North Korea and Iran? What if China and Russia sufficiently coordinated with one another to engage in simultaneous hostilities in the Pacific and in Europe?

Political Coordination


Could Beijing and Moscow coordinate a pair of crises that would drive two separate U.S. military responses? Maybe, but probably not. Each country has its own goals, and works on its own timeline. More likely, one of the two would opportunistically take advantage of an existing crisis to further its regional claims. For example, Moscow might well decide to push the Baltic States if the United States became involved in a major skirmish in the South China Sea.






In any case, the war would start on the initiative of either Moscow or Beijing. The United States enjoys the benefits of the status quo in both areas, and generally (at least where great powers are concerned) prefers to use diplomatic and economic means to pursue its political ends. While the U.S. might create the conditions for war, Russia or China would pull the trigger.

Flexibility:





On the upside, only some of the requirements for fighting in Europe and the Pacific overlap. As was the case in World War II, the U.S. Army would bear the brunt of defending Europe, while the Navy would concentrate on the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force (USAF) would play a supporting role in both theaters.

Russia lacks the ability to fight NATO in the North Atlantic, and probably has no political interest in trying. This means that while the United States and its NATO allies can allocate some resources to threatening Russia’s maritime space (and providing insurance against a Russian naval sortie,) the U.S. Navy (USN) can concentrate its forces in the Pacific. Depending on the length of the conflict and the degree of warning provided, the United States could transport considerable U.S. Army assets to Europe to assist with any serious fighting.

The bulk of American carriers, submarines and surface vessels would concentrate in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, fighting directly against China’s A2/AD system and sitting astride China’s maritime transit lanes. Long range aviation, including stealth bombers and similar assets, would operate in both theaters as needed.

The U.S. military would be under strong pressure to deliver decisive victory in at least one theater as quickly as possible. This might push the United States to lean heavily in one direction with air, space and cyber assets, hoping to achieve a strategic and political victory that would allow the remainder of its weight to shift to the other theater. Given the strength of U.S. allies in Europe, the United States might initially focus on the conflict in the Pacific.

Alliance Structure:

U.S. alliance structure in the Pacific differs dramatically from that of Europe. Notwithstanding concern over the commitment of specific U.S. allies in Europe, the United States has no reason to fight Russia apart from maintaining the integrity of the NATO alliance. If the United States fights, then Germany, France, Poland and the United Kingdom will follow. In most conventional scenarios, even the European allies alone would give NATO a tremendous medium term advantage over the Russians; Russia might take parts of the Baltics, but it would suffer heavily under NATO airpower, and likely couldn’t hold stolen territory for long. In this context, the USN and USAF would largely play support and coordinative roles, giving the NATO allies the advantage they needed to soundly defeat the Russians. The U.S. nuclear force would provide insurance against a Russian decision to employ tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.

The United States faces more difficult problems in the Pacific. Japan or India might have an interest in the South China Sea, but this hardly guarantees their participation in a war (or even the degree of benevolence of their neutrality.) The alliance structure of any given conflict would depend on the particulars of that conflict; any of the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan could become China’s primary target. The rest, U.S. pressure aside, might well prefer to sit on the sidelines. This would put extra pressure on the United States to establish dominance in the Western Pacific with its own assets.

Parting Shots:

The United States can still fight and win two major wars at the same time, or at least come near enough to winning that neither Russia nor China would see much hope in the gamble. The United States can do this because it continues to maintain the world’s most formidable military, and because it stands at the head of an extremely powerful military alliance. Moreover, Russia and China conveniently pose very different military problems, allowing the United States to allocate some of its assets to one, and the rest to the other.

However, it bears emphasis that this situation will not last forever. The United States cannot maintain this level of dominance indefinitely, and in the long-term will have to choose its commitments carefully. At the same time, the United States has created an international order that benefits many of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world; it can count on their support, for a while.

What you're Looking at here is the unfinished China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a project that was initially Introduced with an astounding budget of $60 billion. Similarly, Kenya launched a railway project with a budget of $3.2 billion, which also remains incomplete. Similar High-Cost Megaprojects have been launched all around the world with one thing in common. They are either unfinished or completely abandoned. But what was the purpose of these billion-dollar projects? And Why do these countries Invest Billions of dollars in such ambitious projects in the first place?

Dishonest piano dealer like the Cunningham Piano Company in Philadelpia Owned by Rich Galasini. I bought this piano from the church of the 7th Day Adventist of Philadelpia. Along the way to delivery, there was a stopover of 3 weeks at the Cunningham Piano Company. I  suspected  an anomaly happening inside the factory, until it was delivered to my home in California. It was the piano action that they changed, like a ferrari changing it to a chevy engine. The concert grand Estonia with  serial number 7476, this piano was constructed in 1999 to 2000. All my complaints were submitted to the BBB of Philadelpia, but I think the circulation is limited compared to my 26 blogs have more than 10,000,000 visits.

The 9' concert grand piano is perfectly located under a 30' ceiling of the family room. The acoustic is just right for the sound flows to the breakfast nook then to the adjacent open kitchen.

"Closely resembling the Hamburg Steinway in both sound and touch, the Estonia combines, in one instrument, some of the best qualities of the great American pianos with those of the high-end Europeans.  Its rich, full-bodied, and three-dimensional sound is American-like, whereas its purity and clarity are European-like.  Its most distinguishing feature is its wonderfully sustaining, lyrical tone.  More than anything else, it is this quality of tone that defines the Estonia piano and gives it its own special place in the high-end market."  -- PianoBuyer, Fall 2009

Estonia Concert Grand Model 274. 

Length 9' 0"

Width 5' 2"

Estonia: 100% European hand made piano with clear, warm and notably resonant, singing tone qualities. Buyers: pianists & music lovers. With and without money..The action that Estonia is using does not contain just "Renner parts" that more then a few manufacturers try to pass as "Renner actions"...They also don't use Renner actions only on their top of the line concert grand models but other actions on almost all the other instrument they make, as some companies do. 

The Estonia action is a FULL Renner action, which is being produced in Renner facilities in Germany, assembled in their Stuttgart, Germany factory, and sent to Estonia. 
Each and every Estonia has a full Renner action, from the concert grand to the smallest 5'6 piano. 
The full Renner action includes the rail, repetitions, flanges, shanks, damper undelever mechanism, damper heads, and of course the assembly. Estonia is also using the top of the line Renner Blue hammers. These are the same hammers used on Hamburg Steinway and Mason & Hamlin pianos (the density is a bit different as to the manufacturers specs, but quality and price are the same).
All full Renner actions use the SAME quality of moving parts, and there is no significant price difference between them although geometry may be different as to the manufacturer's specs.
Almost all High-end European manufacturers use full Renner actions in their pianos...at least in their concert grand pianos and largest models.

The Renner action has proven itself and it's long-term reliability in high performance pianos.
This is not cheap piano wire, but an expensive part with thousands of moving parts.

Iron plates come from Finland, and are made the old-fashioned, European way.

In order to guarantee the right quality, they are sand-cast, seasoned, and only the best plates pass the final selection. They have one year of iron plates in their inventory, and only the best would be selected. It takes modern machinery to make even the rough surfaces and prepare for their mirror-like polish finishes,, at which their craftsmen show their experience. They continue to test them, to make sure that they do not interfere with the piano sound but are there to support the structure. Shiny, smooth, and even, they have received a lot of praise at international music trade shows, and are considered among the best from Europe.

Is it any wonder that Estonia became rated by Piano Buyer in same class of quality as Steinway NY this, in record time?Weight 1213 lbs. I have been reading on this piano for several years, because of their reputation for their quality sound and probably the equal of a Steinway and the making of a  stradivarius of pianos in the future. A very wise investment and a good family heirloom to pass down.

---

- Columbus Dispatch 07/13/08 "I just had to write you an email to tell you that I am completely, totally, head-over-heels in love with my Estonia studio grand piano. In 25 years of playing the piano, I have never had an experience even remotely similar to the Estonia. I have never heard a piano sound so clear, touched keys that literally form to my fingertips, had such an ability to control the high and low registers, or be able to play so soft and so loud and yet have the notes sound so very different. I am truly a better, more proficient and happier piano player with my Estonia. Growing up with a Kawai, I always assumed that I would purchase the same, or at the very least, a Yamaha. But as soon as I sat down at the 5 foot, 6 inch Estonia, I knew that this was my piano, my instrument. As a composer, one issue with all of the other piano's on which I created music was that my shoulders would be sore after an hour or so of playing. After playing my Estonia for 7 straight hours with absolutely no pain, it is clear that the Estonia experience is unique in so many, countless ways.

The Estonia Piano, Hot And In Demand

Estonia is arguably "the hottest European piano on the planet." Immaculately crafted, Estonia pianos have a history dating back to 1893, yet the Estonia piano had been an almost unknown member of the piano industry until about 1999/2000 when Estonia, a tiny country just across the Baltic Sea from Finland, gained its independence after the break-up of the Soviet Union.


After Estonia gained its freedom, the country's nationalized piano company was privatized in 1994 under the ownership of its managers and employees. At that time, Dr. Indrek Laul, an Estonian and renowned pianist was a PhD candidate in piano performance at the Julliard School of Music.

The rims are strong and thick, much thicker than most other pianos. Dense rims are important for a rich sound, plus solid beams support the overall tension of the piano structure, further adding to the balance and longevity of the instrument. Multiple layers of select North-European birch are glued together in a press where they dry over a long time; in addition, the outer frame is set aside to cure separately thereafter. After curing and testing, the wood is further shaped according to exact measurements to form the rim.

Probably a lot of you have, and on the other hand many others haven’t heard of the new kid on the block - The Estonia Piano.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, last year the Estonia Piano Factory in Tallinn exported 300 pianos both grands and baby grands, most of them to the United States. Chris Foley Points out that it would be interesting and important to know how these piano age. Sounding wonderful in a show room is one thing - sounding great after a few years is quite a different matter.

Dr. Indrek Laul Playing A Rachmaninoff Etude On His Estonia 210 Piano At The Factory

E S T O N I A   P I A N O S

Tallinn, Estonia

Ebony Polish Estonia Concert Grand Model 274. 

Length 9' 0"

Width 5' 2"

Weight 1213 lbs.

Over 7500 Concert Grand pianos have been made in Estonia, which is probably the largest number of concert grand made by any piano factory.Estonia Pianos is the only manufacturer from the former Soviet Union that has survived, and now has a reputation of excellent quality at a lower price than other European pianos. Estonia pianos have complete Renner actions made in Germany, the same as used by Fazioli, Hamburg Steinway, Bosendorfer and most other tier one pianos.”

ORIGINAL ESTONIA PIANO RENNER ACTION BLUE POINT HAMMER WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A CHEAP ACTION I bought an original Estonia Piano from Gary Dawkins 610.585.8598 representing the 7th day adventist church of Philadelpia who owned the piano. During the delivery process, the piano was transferred to the above company for preparation ( ORIGINAL ESTONIA PIANO ) of shipment. It took about 3 weeks before the delivery was started, not knowing that Rich Galassini was replacing the original Renner action was being replaced with a cheaper action. I found in google that the piano company was selling the Renner action was sold for $5000 to another client. I was happy at first when I received my Estonia Concert Grand with Serial # 7476 in September 2016 even without the bench that was promised in the contract with Gary Dawkins. Later, I found out that the ORIGINAL ESTONIA PIANO RENNER ACTION BLUE POINT HAMMER WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A CHEAP ACTION before delivery to my residence in El Dorado Hills, CA. I wrote a separate letter to the Estonia Factory to confirm the maker's original factory specification of the action. Please explain why the discrepancy, as this piano is not a true Estonia Concert Grand anymore. Give me a resolution to this problem to save everybody's reputations. I like to have a resolution to this theft and breach of contract. Thank you.

Cunningham Piano Company Response

02/28/2023

Dear Alexander, My name is Rich G******** and I own Cunningham Piano Company. I have not yet checked our records, but I believe that we did indeed pick this up at the North Philadelphia Seventh Day Adventist Church to be transferred to a long distance moving company, and I assume, to you. I do need to share that replacing an action in a concert grand piano is not a cheap process and the only concert grand piano actions that could be used would have to be custom made to fit a piano like Estonia, which is a very expensive process. Our go to manufacturer of custom built actions is Renner. Further the only piano that the action would fit is another Estonia concert grand made at close to the same manufacturing date. You also state that you saw we had sold your used action parts for $5,000.00 on Google. That does not make sense to me because NEW custom made Renner action parts would cost less than that at that time. Any technician would take many hours to remove the action parts, many more hours (about 80 to 100 hours) to install new parts, regulate them, and voice the piano to perform. Please do not interpret this response as an unwillingness to help. I want to help. But I assure you that your speculation of what occurred is incorrect. We do custom restoration for professional pianists, universities, and true lover of piano. We would never do what you have speculated and further, we would loose thousands of dollars doing so. Please call 800 394-1117 at your earliest convenience and ask for me. I am happy to help however I can in finding out what has actually occurred, Mr. C*******. Yours, Rich G********, Owner Cunningham Piano Company

Customer Response

02/28/2023

Why was the transfer originated from your piano factory site, it should have been from the church of the 7th Day Adventist. The delivery truck was at your factory site as I informed them to get it at that factory instead, but Mr. G******** said the piano is not ready and to come back 3 weeks later. Is it about the right amount of time to tamper and change the action, as he said 80 to 100 hours. Also the $5000.00 on the google advertisement included the intallation and the Renner Action. My wife is a professional pianist and the piano delivered to us is not an Estonia original compared to any high European brand, the tone and touch do not have the characteristics of an expensive piano but just ordinary. FYI, we have 3 grand pianos in my house, so I can not be deceived by this tampered piano.

Cunningham Piano Company Response

03/02/2023

Dear Mr. C*******, The reason the piano was picked up at our warehouse is because the long distance movers do not do pick ups where there is no loading dock. We did nothing to the piano while it was in our warehouse. I am happy to have a conversation with you and I truly want to help, but what you are suggesting did not happen. The action would only fit another Estonia concert grand piano and I can buy a NEW renner action for $5,000.00. There is no one who would pay that. I ask again for you to please call me at *** ******** and ask for me by name. Also, please post the advertisement you keep referring to. It cannot exist. I truly look forward to helping however I can.

Customer Response

03/03/2023

Estonia Concert Grand Model 274. Length 9' 0" Width 5' 2" ADVERTISEMENTS ON ESTONIA CONCERT GRANDS A Fine Way to Treat ... an Estonia Sep 1, 2003,12:00am EDT This article is about 20 years old. Bright-and-brash-sounding pianos might be the norm, but the still little-known Estonia piano is making sweet noise with Old World parlor grands. The Russian-born Dmitry S**********, a world-class violinist, and his American wife, the light soprano Susan R******, are consummate classical musicians who demand the best. S********** performs on his very own Stradivarius, for example, an instrument built in 1717 and worth over $3 million. But that's precisely why a visitor to their London town house can't help noticing the grand piano sitting in their living room is no German Steinway, Bechstein or Bösendorfer. It's an Estonia. 

Six years ago S********** and his wife walked into a top London piano dealership looking for a piano that could accompany their rehearsals at home. "There was this piano that sounded good," recalls S**********, immediately struck by the Estonia's tone, "and the price was certainly competitive to the more famous brands, which sometimes don't quite deliver what you expect. This is a very good working piano." Since then other music industry insiders--such as Grammy nominee Marc-André H*****--have picked up on word-of-mouth and discovered the high-quality piano. Says Neeme Jä***, chief conductor of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra: "It is one of the best-kept secrets in piano making today." The cognoscenti are not recognizing the handcrafted Estonia--named after the republic on the Baltic--just for its uniquely lush and romantic tone, but also for its exceptionally good value. The official U.S. list prices of the 167cm Estonia Studio Grand and the more popular 190cm Estonia Parlor Grand range from $21,402 to $31,206 and they come in everything from ebony to African bubinga. The 273cm Estonia Concert Grand, weighing 500 kilograms, retails for $65,000. (Piano dealerships typically offer customers 10% discounts on the suggested retail price.) How do these prices compare? "An Estonia Concert Grand can be had for roughly half the price of a Steinway Concert Grand," says Irving Faust of Faust Harrison, a New York dealer and restorer of "vintage" American Steinway, Mason & H***** and Estonia pianos. "This great piano is giving pause to a lot of other manufacturers, because they'll have to meet the standard of the Estonia if they want to survive." Piano making in Estonia stretches back 200 years, but the company itself was founded in 1893 by Ernst Hiis, an Estonian master craftsman trained at Steinway-Hamburg. When the Soviets annexed the Baltic state in 1940, the conquered country was forced to give Joseph Stalin a gift, and the nation of 1.5 million gave a Hiis-made piano. Stalin apparently loved the handmade grand, and the Soviet commissars made sure Hiis was given a factory to consolidate all other Estonian piano workshops under him and a near-monopoly to supply the empire with grand pianos newly branded with the Estonia name. 

Production peaked under the Soviets at 475 grand pianos a year, but, isolated from new techniques, the Estonia factory inevitably fell into decline after Hiis' passing. The Berlin Wall fell, Estonia regained its national independence, and in 1993 the factory's 130 employees took the piano maker private. Jump now to New York, where a gifted Estonian pianist, Indrek Laul, was getting his doctorate at the Juilliard School. Laul contacted the piano maker of his homeland and discovered they didn't have U.S. representation and that annual production was falling, to just 49 grand pianos in 1994. The young musician found a distributor to spearhead Estonia's American business, and from then on, whenever Laul cut a record or performed, he spent his pay buying out Estonia stockholders, until he owned the piano maker outright. Laul, from a well-known musical family in Estonia, stayed in New York to build the brand in the U.S. but put his choirmaster father in charge of quality control at the Tallinn factory. His mother, meanwhile, was enlisted to test-run every piano before it was put in containers bound for the U.S. and other markets. "Most other piano companies went for bright, brilliant tones sounding through the orchestra," says Laul. "We wanted to offer something different, something that when you sat down and played, you really enjoyed." That's why the Lauls have reinvested all their profits into the business, systematically redesigning, rebuilding and improving a piano that a decade ago was merely middling. The mechanical innards, for example, are now made by Germany's Renner, the world's best maker of hammerheads, shanks and flanges; the soundboard is made from Siberian white spruce and treated with a proprietary technique at the Tallinn factory. Such technical details create the piano's old-fashioned tone, which is frequently described as romantic, sweet and mellow. "We compare it to old winemaking," says Laul. "A very good-tasting wine has its unique characteristics, and so does a piano." 

The payoff? Production is back up, to 380 pianos a year, and Laul, 35, says he'd like to add more high-end dealers in places like Florida, where the Estonia is not yet represented. But he can't do so for the foreseeable future, because demand from his existing U.S. dealership is outstripping the Tallinn factories' production. If you want to stroke one yourself, go to "contact" on www.estoniapiano.com, and Laul's office will let you know where the nearest dealership is, anywhere in the world. But be prepared to haggle. Irving Faust in New York City is offering a sweet deal: If you buy an Estonia from his 58th Street store and want to trade up within five years, he'll buy it back at cost. That's because Faust is betting the still modestly priced Estonia will join the very few piano brands worldwide that appreciate, not depreciate, over time. "These are," says Faust, "investment-grade pianos." James Cameron, the principal at Estonia's U.K. distributor, the Edinburgh Piano Co., says British dealerships will probably also (but unofficially) take back the Estonia at cost if the buyer is spending considerably more on a grander Estonia or other more expensive piano. - Columbus Dispatch 07/13/08 "I just had to write you an email to tell you that I am completely, totally, head-over-heels in love with my Estonia studio grand piano. In 25 years of playing the piano, I have never had an experience even remotely similar to the Estonia. I have never heard a piano sound so clear, touched keys that literally form to my fingertips, had such an ability to control the high and low registers, or be able to play so soft and so loud and yet have the notes sound so very different. I am truly a better, more proficient and happier piano player with my Estonia. Growing up with a Kawai, I always assumed that I would purchase the same, or at the very least, a Yamaha. But as soon as I sat down at the 5 foot, 6 inch Estonia, I knew that this was my piano, my instrument. As a composer, one issue with all of the other piano's on which I created music was that my shoulders would be sore after an hour or so of playing. After playing my Estonia for 7 straight hours with absolutely no pain, it is clear that the Estonia experience is unique in so many, countless ways. "Closely resembling the Hamburg Steinway in both sound and touch, the Estonia combines, in one instrument, some of the best qualities of the great American pianos with those of the high-end Europeans. Its rich, full-bodied, and three-dimensional sound is American-like, whereas its purity and clarity are European-like. Its most distinguishing feature is its wonderfully sustaining, lyrical tone. More than anything else, it is this quality of tone that defines the Estonia piano and gives it its own special place in the high-end market." -- Piano Buyer, Fall 2009 Estonia: 100% European hand made piano with clear, warm and notably resonant, singing tone qualities. Buyers: pianists & music lovers. With and without money..The action that Estonia is using does not contain just "Renner parts" that more then a few manufacturers try to pass as "Renner actions"...They also don't use Renner actions only on their top of the line concert grand models but other actions on almost all the other instrument they make, as some companies do. The Estonia action is a FULL Renner action, which is being produced in Renner facilities in Germany, assembled in their Stuttgart, Germany factory, and sent to Estonia. Each and every Estonia has a full Renner action, from the concert grand to the smallest 5'6 piano. The full Renner action includes the rail, repetitions, flanges, shanks, damper undelever mechanism, damper heads, and of course the assembly. Estonia is also using the top of the line Renner Blue hammers. These are the same hammers used on Hamburg Steinway and Mason & H***** pianos (the density is a bit different as to the manufacturers specs, but quality and price are the same). 

My wife playing a non Estonia grand that sounds better than the piano deliverd from the above piano company.

All full R***** actions use the SAME quality of moving parts, and there is no significant price difference between them although geometry may be different as to the manufacturer's specs. Almost all High-end European manufacturers use full Renner actions in their pianos...at least in their concert grand pianos and largest models. The Renner action has proven itself and it's long-term reliability in high performance pianos. This is not cheap piano wire, but an expensive part with thousands of moving parts. THE DELIVERY OF THE PIANO TO US WAS DONE BY A TRUCK WITH ELEVATOR (shipping truck elevator tailgate lift) SO THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A LOADING DOCK.

CONFIRMED (STOLEN) CHANGED OF RENNER ACTION BY CUNNINGHAM PIANO COMPANY FROM A  PIANO FORUM 

When Did Estonia Become a "Premium" Brand? - 11/30/16 04:51 PM


Is Estonia now considered in the same league as NY S&S? When I purchased my piano 11 years ago it was a performance grade piano (not exactly sure what that means), it's still a very nice instrument with Renner actions and Renner Blue hammers. There have been a number of changes since that time that have made them somewhat better instruments, I recall the improved harp and change in sound board that seemed to allow somewhat lighter hammers (and consequently lighter action). There were cosmetic changes at the same time that make these instruments easy to spot (mostly the nicer nuts on the harp). If the L190 you're looking at has plain screws and hexagonal nuts inside then it's the older design (still a very nice piano and I would say a good deal at $13K).

The fact is there have been many changes and the Laul era has been a period of gradual improvement every year since before 2000. So it would be hard to pinpoint any one year as the time when they became a "premium" piano

When Did Estonia Become a "Premium" Brand? - 11/30/16 04:51 PM

Is Estonia now considered in the same league as NY S&S? When I purchased my piano 11 years ago it was a performance grade piano (not exactly sure what that means), it's still a very nice instrument with Renner actions and Renner Blue hammers. There have been a number of changes since that time that have made them somewhat better instruments, I recall the improved harp and change in sound board that seemed to allow somewhat lighter hammers (and consequently lighter action). There were cosmetic changes at the same time that make these instruments easy to spot (mostly the nicer nuts on the harp). If the L190 you're looking at has plain screws and hexagonal nuts inside then it's the older design (still a very nice piano and I would say a good deal at $13K).

The fact is there have been many changes and the Laul era has been a period of gradual improvement every year since before 2000. So it would be hard to pinpoint any one year as the time when they became a "premium" piano

 

Was America's Top Secret Aurora spy plane real - Here's the evidence

Aurora is a rumored mid-1980s American reconnaissance aircraft. There is no substantial evidence that it was ever built or flown and it has been termed a myth.

The U.S. government has consistently denied such an aircraft was ever built. Aviation and space reference site Aerospaceweb.org concluded, "The evidence supporting the Aurora is circumstantial or pure conjecture, there is little reason to contradict the government's position."

Former Skunk Works director Ben Rich confirmed that "Aurora" was simply a myth in Skunk Works (1994), a book detailing his days as the director. Rich wrote that a colonel working in the Pentagon arbitrarily assigned the name "Aurora" to the funding for the B-2 bomber design competition and somehow the name was leaked to the media.

In 2006, veteran black project watcher and aviation writer Bill Sweetman said, "Does Aurora exist? Years of pursuit have led me to believe that, yes, Aurora is most likely in active development, spurred on by recent advances that have allowed technology to catch up with the ambition that launched the program a generation ago."

The Aurora legend started in 1985, when the Los Angeles Times[5] and later Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine broke the news that the term "Aurora" had been inadvertently included in the 1985 U.S. budget, as an allocation of $455 million for "black aircraft production" in FY 1987.[6] According to Aviation Week, Project Aurora referred to a group of exotic aircraft, and not to one particular airframe. Funding of the project allegedly reached $2.3 billion in fiscal 1987, according to a 1986 procurement document obtained by Aviation Week. In the 1994 book Skunk Works, Ben Rich, the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works division, wrote that the Aurora was the budgetary code name for the stealth bomber fly-off that resulted in the B-2 Spirit.

By the late 1980s, many aerospace industry observers believed that the U.S. had the technological capability to build a Mach 5 (hypersonic speed) replacement for the aging Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. Detailed examinations of the U.S. defense budget claimed to have found money missing or channeled into black projects.[8] By the mid-1990s, reports surfaced of sightings of unidentified aircraft flying over California and the United Kingdom involving odd-shaped contrails, sonic booms, and related phenomena that suggested the US had developed such an aircraft. Nothing ever linked any of these observations to any program or aircraft type, but the name Aurora was often tagged on these as a way of explaining the observations.
British sighting claims

In late August 1989, while working as an engineer on the jack-up barge GSF Galveston Key in the North Sea, Chris Gibson saw an unfamiliar isosceles triangle-shaped delta aircraft, apparently refueling from a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and accompanied by a pair of F-111 fighter-bombers. Gibson watched the aircraft for several minutes, until they went out of sight. He subsequently drew a sketch of the formation.

Artist's rendering of the Aurora from various angles

When the sighting was made public in 1992, the British Defence Secretary Tom King was told, "There is no knowledge in the MoD of a 'black' programme of this nature, although it would not surprise the relevant desk officers in the Air Staff and Defence Intelligence Staff if it did exist."[9]

A crash at RAF Boscombe Down in Wiltshire on 26 September 1994 appeared closely linked to "black" missions, according to a report in AirForces Monthly. Further investigation was hampered by USAF aircraft flooding into the base. Special Air Service personnel arrived in plainclothes in an Agusta 109. The crash site was protected from view by fire engines and tarpaulins and the base was closed to all flights soon afterwards.[10] More recent analysis, however, indicates that the Boscombe Down crash was a towed missile decoy.[11]

An unsubstantiated claim on the Horsted Keynes Village Web Site purports to show photos of the trail left after an unusual sonic boom was heard over the village in July 2002. In 2005 the information was used in a BBC report about the Aurora project.

U.S. sighting claims

A series of unusual sonic booms was detected in Southern California beginning in mid-to-late 1991 and recorded by United States Geological Survey sensors across Southern California used to pinpoint earthquake epicenters.[13] The sonic booms were characteristic of a smaller vehicle, rather than of the 37-meter long Space Shuttle orbiter. Furthermore, neither the Shuttle nor NASA's single SR-71B was operating on the days the booms had been registered.[14] In the article, "In Plane Sight?" which appeared in the Washington City Paper on 3 July 1992 (pp. 12–13), one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 4 and 7."[6] Former NASA sonic boom expert Dom Maglieri studied the 15-year-old sonic boom data from the California Institute of Technology and has deemed that the data showed "something at 90,000 ft (c. 27 km), Mach 4 to Mach 5.2". He also said the booms did not look like those from aircraft that had traveled through the atmosphere many miles away at Los Angeles International Airport; rather, they appeared to be booms from a high-altitude aircraft directly above the ground, moving at high speeds.[15] The boom signatures of the two different aircraft patterns are wildly different.[4] There was nothing particular to tie these events to any aircraft, but they served to increase the number of stories about the Aurora.

Artist's rendering of the Aurora from behind

On 23 March 1992, near Amarillo, Texas, Steven Douglass photographed the "donuts on a rope" contrail and linked this sighting to distinctive sounds. He described the engine noise as: "strange, loud pulsating roar... unique... a deep pulsating rumble that vibrated the house and made the windows shake... similar to rocket engine noise, but deeper, with evenly timed pulses." In addition to providing the first photographs of the distinctive contrail previously reported by many, the significance of this sighting was enhanced by Douglass' reports of intercepts of radio transmissions: "Air-to-air communications... were between an AWACS aircraft with the call sign "Dragnet 51" from Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, and two unknown aircraft using the call signs "Darkstar November" and "Darkstar Mike". Messages consisted of phonetically transmitted alphanumerics. It is not known whether this radio traffic had any association with the "pulser" that had just flown over Amarillo." ("Darkstar" is also a call sign of AWACS aircraft from a different squadron at Tinker AFB)[16] A month later, radio enthusiasts in California monitoring Edwards AFB Radar (callsign "Joshua Control") heard early morning radio transmissions between Joshua and a high flying aircraft using the callsign "Gaspipe". "You're at 67,000 feet, 81 miles out" was heard, followed by "70 miles out now, 36,000 ft, above glideslope." As in the past, nothing linked these observations to any particular aircraft or program, but the attribution to the Aurora helped expand the legend.

In February 1994, a former resident of Rachel, Nevada, and Area 51 enthusiast, Chuck Clark, claimed to have filmed the Aurora taking off from the Groom Lake facility. In the David Darlington book Area 51: The Dreamland Chronicles, he said:



I even saw the Aurora take off one night — or an aircraft that matched the Aurora's reputed configuration: a sharp delta with twin tails about a hundred and thirty feet long. It taxied out of a lighted hangar at 2:30 a.m. and used a lot of runway to take off. It had one red light on top, but the minute the wheels left the runway, the light went off and that was the last I saw of it. I didn't hear it because the wind was blowing from behind me toward the base." I asked when this had taken place. "February 1994. Obviously they didn't think anybody was out there. It was thirty below zero – probably ninety below with the wind chill factor. I had hiked into White Sides from a different, harder way than usual, and stayed there two or three days among the rocks, under a camouflage tarp with six layers of clothes on. I had an insulated face mask and two sleeping bags, so I didn't present a heat signature. I videotaped the aircraft through a telescope with a five-hundred-millimeter f4 lens coupled via a C-ring to a high-eight digital video camera with five hundred and twenty scan lines of resolution, which is better than TV." The author then asked, "Where's the tape?" "Locked away. That's a legitimate spyplane; my purpose is not to give away legitimate national defense. When they get ready to unveil it, I'll probably release the tape."[17]
Additional claims[edit]

By 1996, reports associated with the Aurora name dropped off in frequency, suggesting to people who believed that the aircraft existed that it had only ever been a prototype or that it had had a short service life.[1]

In 2000, Aberdeen Press and Journal writer Nic Outterside wrote a piece on US stealth technology in Scotland. Citing confidential "sources", he alleged RAF/USAF Machrihanish in Kintyre, Argyll to be a base for Aurora aircraft. Machrihanish's almost 2-mile-long (3.2 km) long runway makes it suitable for high-altitude and experimental aircraft with the fenced-off coastal approach making it ideal for takeoffs and landings to be made well away from eyes or cameras of press and public. "Oceanic Air Traffic Control at Prestwick," Outterside says, "also tracked fast-moving radar blips. It was claimed by staff that a 'hypersonic jet was the only rational conclusion' for the readings."[18]

In 2006, aviation writer Bill Sweetman put together 20 years of examining budget "holes", unexplained sonic booms, as well as the Gibson sighting and concluded:



This evidence helps establish the program's initial existence. My investigations continue to turn up evidence that suggests current activity. For example, having spent years sifting through military budgets, tracking untraceable dollars and code names, I learned how to sort out where money was going. This year, when I looked at the Air Force operations budget in detail, I found a $9-billion black hole that seems a perfect fit for a project like Aurora.

In June 2017, Aviation Week reported that Rob Weiss, the General Manager of the Skunk Works, provided some confirmation of a research project and stated that hypersonic flight technology was now mature, and efforts were underway to fly an aircraft with it.

A British Ministry of Defence report released in May 2006 refers to USAF priority plans to produce a Mach 4-6 highly supersonic vehicle, but no conclusive evidence had emerged to confirm the existence of such a project. It was believed by some that the Aurora project was canceled due to a shift from spy-planes to high-tech unmanned aerial vehicles and reconnaissance satellites which can do the same job as a spyplane, but with less risk of casualties.

The main question here is, Does the US Air Force or America’s intelligence agencies have a secret hypersonic aircraft capable of a Mach 6 performance?. The continually growing evidence suggests that the answer to this question is YES. Perhaps the most well-known instance which provides evidence of such an aircraft’s existence is the sighting of a triangular plane over the North Sea in August 1989 by oil-exploration engineer Chris Gibson. As well as the famous “skyquakes” heard over Los Angeles since the early 1990s, found to be heading for the secret Groom Lake (Area 51) installation in the Nevada desert, numerous other facts provide an understanding of how the aircraft’s technology works. Rumored to exist but routinely denied by U.S. officials, the name of this aircraft is Aurora.

The outside world uses the name Aurora because a censor’s slip let it appear below the SR-71 Blackbird and U-2 in the 1985 Pentagon budget request. Even if this was the actual name of the project, it would have by now been changed after being compromised in such a manner.

The plane’s real name has been kept a secret along with its existence. This is not unfamiliar though, the F-117a stealth fighter was kept a secret for over ten years after its first pre-production test flight. The project is what is technically known as a Special Access Program (SAP). More often, such projects are referred to as “black programs.”

So what was the first sign of the existence of SR-91 Aurora ? On 6 March 1990, one of the United States Air Force’s Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spyplanes shattered the official air speed record from Los Angeles to Washington’s Dulles Airport. There, a brief ceremony marked the end of the SR-71’s operational career. Officially, the SR-71 was being retired to save the $200-$300 million a year it cost to operate the fleet. Some reporters were told the plane had been made redundant by sophisticated spy satellites.

But there was one problem, the USAF made no opposition towards the plane’s retirement, and congressional attempts to revive the program were discouraged. Never in the history of the USAF had a program been closed without opposition. Aurora is the missing factor to the silent closure of the SR-71 program.

Testing such a new radical aircraft brings immense costs and inconvenience, not just in the design and development of a prototype aircraft, but also in providing a secret testing place for an aircraft that is obviously different from those the public are aware of.

The Groom Dry Lake, in the Nevada desert, is home to one of America’s elite secret proving grounds which was Aurora’s most likely test location. Comparing today’s Groom Lake with images of the base in the 1970s, it is apparent that many of the larger buildings and hangars were added during the following decade. Also, the Groom Lake test facility has a lake-bed runway that is six miles long, twice as long as the longest normal runways in the United States. The reason for such a long runway is simple, the length of a runway is determined either by the distance an aircraft requires to accelerate to a flying speed, or the distance that the aircraft needs to decelerate after landing. That distance is proportional to the speed at which lift-off takes place. Usually, very long runways are designed for aircraft with very high minimum flying speeds, and, as is the case at Edwards AFB, these are aircraft that are optimized for very high maximum speeds. Almost 19,000 feet of the runway at Groom Lake is paved for normal operations.

Lockheed’s Skunk Works, now the Lockheed Advanced Development Company, is the most likely prime contractor for the SR-91 Aurora aircraft. Throughout the 1980s, financial analysts concluded that Lockheed had been engaged in several large classified projects. However, they weren’t able to identify enough of them to account for the company’s income.

Technically, the Skunk Works has a unique record of managing large, high-risk programs under an incredible unparalleled secrecy. Even with high-risk projects that the company has undertaken, Lockheed has a record of providing what it promises to deliver.

In 2006, renowned aviation writer Bill Sweetman had stated and derived to a conclusion that, “This evidence of 20 years of examining budget “holes”, unexplained sonic booms, plus the Gibson sighting , helps establish the program’s initial existence. My investigations continue to turn up evidence that suggests current activity. For example, having spent years sifting through military budgets, tracking untraceable dollars and code names, I learned how to sort out where money was going. This year, when I looked at the Air Force operations budget in detail, I found a $9-billion black hole that seems a perfect fit for a project like Aurora.”

NEW NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) INSANE UPGRADED   US   F-22

After several years of speculation, the United States Air Force (USAF) has confirmed that there will be only one Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) in the future. Speaking at a meeting in Washington D.C., Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall couldn't." have made the USAF's feeling clearer on the issue.

"We're not going to do two NGADs. We're only going to do one," he stated, according to John Tirpak of Air and Space Forces. While the finalists for winning the contract are currently unknown, top contenders will likely be a mix of Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman, with support from competing jet engine manufacturers Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.

The NGAD program aims to take over the Air Force's F-22A Raptor stealth fighters by the 2030s. Despite their exceptional agility and stealth capabilities, the F-22 fleet's small size has made it excessively costly to maintain and upgrade due to its dependence on outdated non-open architecture systems and high-maintenance radar absorbent materials technology from the 1990s

To this end, the Air Force recently invited designs for an NGAD fighter, with the winning concept set to be announced in 2024. Ideally, according to Popular Mechanics, the Air Force would like to obtain 250 of these fighters, although they acknowledge that each one would likely cost hundreds of millions of dollars. To put things into perspective, the current F-35A stealth fighter costs around $85 million due to large-scale production. The NGAD fighter is expected to have improved sensors and communication links compared to the F-22, while also being more agile than the F-35.

The Air Force is projected to spend $16 billion over the next five years on the research, development, testing, and evaluation of NGAD. They aim to create a future warplane that has significantly lower operating costs than the F-22s and, hopefully, the F-35s.

According to Kendall, the Pentagon also aims to prevent ownership of the NGAD from being centralized in one manufacturer, which has caused intellectual property (IP) disputes with Lockheed, the manufacturer of the F-35. The objective of NGAD is for the government to maintain the IP of multiple aircraft systems right from the start. This will enable the incorporation of new technologies from other companies or the development of quick solutions without being bombarded with cease-and-desist letters.

It also is worth mentioning that there are two programs called "Next Generation Air Dominance". Interestingly, both programs bear the same name. One program is led by the U.S. Navy and aims to replace the FA-18E/F Super Hornet carrier-based fighters in the future. For the USAF, NGAD will specialize in air-to-air combat similar to the F-22, but it will also possess some ground attack capabilities, particularly for the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). Furthermore, it is anticipated that NGAD will have a higher internal weapon capacity than the F-22.