[CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

[Jeff Tanner]

On Sep 20, 2007, at 8:36 PM, David Love wrote:

> 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.

This sounds suspiciously like lore originated by competitors.

On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Douglas Wood wrote:
> 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.

I have heard Joe Bisceglie, and I believe someone else say this same  
thing.  Shellac was used before lacquer.


On Sep 21, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Fred Sturm wrote:
> Hmm, hammers from a D from the 20s. Unfortunately hammers on Ds  
> almost always get replaced fairly often, so I doubt many of us have  
> ever run across such things.

And so, if hammers were replaced by technicians in the field who  
didn't know to, didn't know how to, or chose not to use lacquer or  
shellac, this would explain why someone would find hammers from a NY  
1920s D to not contain anything but felt.

My question would have to be that if the ideal hammer was one that  
did not require lacquer -- if the sound they are looking for really  
required a hammer that did not require lacquer, then why spend $1  
million plus <<recently>> on a new hammer press to manufacture  
hammers that still require lacquer?  How much sense does that make?

Why not just call up Renner and say, hey guys, pick up production --  
we're switching to your Wurzen hammers because they produce the sound  
we've always been searching for?

The point I was making about identity was in regards to the overall  
picture - to the future.  What we do to each individual piano will in  
its own small way affect the future of the industry, because what  
future buyers judge the product by is the product already out there  
in the public.  I believe for the premium manufacturers to survive,  
they must have identity.  Otherwise, they wind up like Wm Knabe by  
SMC -- a really nice piano, but it is much like the other similarly  
equipped pianos built by SMC with other names on them.  I see even  
Mason & Hamlin has gone back to some version of the WN&G Mason &  
Hamlin action (I don't know about hammers).  It was using all Renner,  
and when it was, the few I saw reminded me of every other piano out  
there using Renner actions, hammers, Roslau wire and Bolduc soundboards.

I don't think we want to wake up one day and find ourselves working  
on the Steinway model 288 by Dong Bei.

Jeff


Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070921/fa439e71/attachment.html