Hi Doug I agree here again. I find very much of the commentary along these lines I hear around the world. And I keep hearing from older Steinway folks that little has changed in the two factories over the years... well until more recent times. I have to bow to others experience with NY's because I have only those 3 years with you and the gang in Seattle, and my contact with you folks at that time was more limited then I would have it if I had the chance to take those 3 years back and re-do them.... but thats another story. Seems to me that there is much that is curious about the whole early Steinway sound bit that comes up both here and in other forums and other environments. Ofte times it becomes reminiscent of a couple historical instrument forums I monitor. Much of it seems typical in general of classic love/hate affairs.... A need to identify with some great reputation... yet distance oneself at the same time in order to maintain some sense of individuality. As you say, Steinway sound has been something they have very conservatively developed over their entire history. If there has been any factory more resistant to change I'd like to know who they are. As to the hammers... I think about the only way you will find any kind of definitive answer is by taking a chemical analysis of very many sets of hammers from both Hamburg and NY instruments. One needs to remember that years of life also include years of exposure to many techs from many schools of thought. Perhaps one might find some tendencies. Otherwise one simply needs to rely on the memories of old timers and what is reported down through the wash of time. I dont think NY need apologize to anyone for use of lacquered hammers. Tho my preference is for non lacquered... a preference is only a preference. The NY sound is very different then the Hamburg sound... even tho there is a commonality to be clearly heard within those differences. I'm glad for the difference and would hope this continues. I would disagree with any claim that a change of basic hammer types will not significantly impact the sound characteristics of an instrument. One only need swap out Hamburg hammers for NY on a Hamburg D... whatever voicing skills you possess... that change will of course impact the overall sound of the piano. If this were not the case... one could use virtually any hammer of any type and just work it enough to get identical responses. I think you are correct... the use of Lacquer provides a certain percussive component that is essential to the type of sound that NY is after.... and without it... you just wont get that same sound. Cheers RicB 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC