[Harp-L] Re: Question for Michael from Seydel

["Michael Timler" <mail@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Elizabeth,

the problem is, that I am not a native English speaker, and therefore the 
meaning of 'retooling' can be missunderstood.
To produce an instrument in our enviroment needs special tools fitting into 
our machines, or may be even new ones.

The formula is, that we will produce the instrument at the high level as it 
is and IMPROVE it.
There is never a product that will be perfect, and we are harmonica makers 
since 1847, so, if we put both forces together, we could get an even better 
instrument, don't you think so?

Retooling means, to take the tools that are made and put it into our 
manufacturing enviroment.

To continue the production on the level as it is, continuing with the people 
that made the parts already (they have another partner now, so we should 
talk with them.) and combining it with the factory here, this is what I 
would call 'retooling'.

Sorry for the real faux pas that happened not to include Bobbie, much to my 
regret.
I apologize again. It was my mistake, hacking too fast without thinking, 
sorry.


Yours
Michael from Seydel



> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:47:54 EST
> From: EGS1217@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Subject: [Harp-L] Re: Question for Michael from Seydel
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <230.2c2427c.30c20cfa@xxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Michael (from Seydel) writes:
>
> "We are up to produce Douglas Tates 'Renaissance' which is a challenge, 
> that
> will keep us busy for the next months, just in retooling (So, please 
> don't
> ask for delivery times and prices at the moment).
> We take that very  very serious.
>
> Yours
> Michael from Seydel."
>
> ......excuse me, Michael, but I (and most other Harp-L members here)  know
> that the Renaissance was a dream and collaborative effort between  Douglas 
> Tate
> and Bobbie Giordano (of this list), and under the present  circumstances 
> it
> seems especially uncomfortable for us to hear you omit her  name from any
> mention here of the Renaissance.  As well,  in  my very humble opinion, I 
> can't
> imagine why her stunningly beautiful  instrument I saw and heard being 
> played by
> Michael Pelosky at SPAH 2005 would  require any retooling whatsoever. 
> Wouldn't
> that then change it so it no  longer WAS the Renaissance?  Pardon my 
> naivete,
> but why would Seydel  want or need to change it?
>
> Elizabeth