[CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

[David Love]

My experience with having removed countless sets from pianos of that vintage
(all models) is that they don't contain lacquer.  That doesn't mean that
lacquer wasn't added later.  But I have had enough examples of non lacquered
hammers from that period to lead me to believe that they weren't lacquered
in production.  My understanding is that the lacquer procedure came about
much later in response to a change in felt production that rendered the out
of the box hammer unusable.  It came about empirically as the factory
voicers experimented with ways to salvage an otherwise unusable hammer.   I
don't think one should apologize for having to use the stuff.  If you choose
a hammer that requires lacquer, you have no choice.  I have certainly
installed my share of lacquered hammers and had the opportunity to watch
them develop over time.  Until the last several years I didn't really like
the non lacquered alternatives and continued to do the best I could with
cotton and plastic.  If I do say so myself, I got pretty good at it.  

That being said, I'll stick my neck out and say that a lacquered hammer is
less desirable than a non-lacquered one.  What advantage can there be to
binding up elastic felt fibers that should, in my opinion, through the
felting process create a nicely firm and tension hammer that exhibits good
tone producing resilient qualities.  Especially if the felt requires a 30
second dip in plastic in order to achieve some acceptable level of density.
A lacquered hammer may sound ok for awhile, but it won't develop as well as
the lacquer continues to harden.  The amount of lacquer required does make
some difference.  Hammers that require very dilute solutions suffer less in
the long run.  Still, given a choice, I prefer unadulterated felt.  

I am more inclined to think that the myth is that lacquer was always used.
The disservice is that the production of hammers using the age old but time
consuming and less profitable per set felting process should have been
abandoned in favor of cotton balls infused with lacquer or hammers petrified
by the over use of heat pressing practices.  

As someone who definitely is an advocate for new technologies, sometimes the
traditional does prove to be the best. 

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Wood
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:58 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

I keep hearing contradictory things about the nearly-mythical '20's  
Steinway piano hammers, particularly regarding the use of lacquer.  
Many independent technicians are convinced that they do not contain  
lacquer, or at least very little. This does not seem to agree with my  
experience. And I have asked at least 6 different, very  
knowledgeable, senior technicians employed by Steinway about it, and  
they all have agreed that to their knowledge, every Model D Steinway  
ever issued from the factory (NY) has had lacquer (or its precursor)  
in all 88 hammers. This includes Joe Bisceglie, who probably had the  
earliest involvement with the company.

So, can any of you provide hard evidence of a factory hammer in a D  
without? I'd really like to know.

This relates to my earlier post about the hammers being, actually, a  
composite. And the suggestion that Steinway developed its hammer, and  
its tone, including lacquer (or its precursor) as an essential  
element. I'd guess that most of you don't hold particularly to the  
purist notion that a no-lacquer hammer is by its very nature superior  
to a lacquered one--that we somehow should apologize for needing to  
use such awful stuff, or whatever. But this myth that in the golden  
days of piano manufacture the hammers were so great that lacquer  
wasn't necessary does the industry a large disservice.

Doug Wood