At 09:23 AM 01/10/2001 -0500, you wrote: > jon writes: > ><<The older hammers filed with ease, was that due to shellac in the hammer or >lacquer or a better hammer making process. I bet the later.>> > >I generally autopsy hammers before I throw them away, and have cut open a lot >of older Steinway hammers. I don't see evidence of hardener in there before >the 1950's. I know, they say that the hammers have always had a hardener >put in them, but I don't believe that. A 1930 bass hammer, when cut open >and the felt worked back and forth until it frays, doesn't seem to have >anything in there at all, and soaking the pieces with alcohol doesn't seem to >change anything, which it would do if there was shellac imbedded in the felt. > > I think the new hammers are made from felt that is cut poorly, allowing > the >felting layers to be so non-continuous that when taken out of the cauls, any >attempt to shape them will, like as not, follow a "grain" line directly into >the hammer instead of following the contour around the edges. I remember the >Yamaha hammers of the the late '70's vintage doing much the same thing, even >though they were harder to begin with. Anybody else got ideas? With my generally limited knowledge of the hammer making process, could it be that the felt is not 'shaken' into the horizontal mass as years ago and rely more on presses? Old hammers have a nice 'peel' and new ones don't, what has changed? The main reason I use hardener before filing is poor layering and felt pulling out. One tech here put it, "I think they're made out of old diapers". Regards, Jon Page, piano technician Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. mailto:jonpage@mediaone.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC