[CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

[Delwin D Fandrich]

As far as I have been able to determine that refers only to the shoulder
hardening/reinforcing that has been common to Steinway (along with several
others) since sometime during the late 1800s. It does not mean that any chemical
hardening was used on the working portion of the hammer.
 
During the mid-1970s I spent a week at the Steinway factory. During this week I
was able to observe just about every step of the building process at my leisure,
including hammer making and installation. At that time it was not common
practice to automatically chemically harden the hammers. The hammers on those
pianos that ended up in their own selection room may have been chemically
hardened--that I wouldn't know about. But the pianos we received (including
Model Ds) showed no evidence of chemical hardening. And, no, I didn't have them
chemically analyzed but they were reasonably soft and resilient with needles
going in smoothly and easily. In those days replacement hammers came to us
without any chemical hardening and they felt and voiced just like the hammers we
were finding in the new pianos.
 
Del
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Design & Manufacturing Consultant
620 South Tower Avenue
Centralia, Washington 98531  USA
Phone  360.736-7563
<mailto:fandrich at pianobuilders.com> 

 
 


  _____  

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Solliday
Sent: September 22, 2007 10:32 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer


In fact Steinway has been reinforcing hammers chemically since at least 1911. It
may not have been  lacquer per se but... see the discussion in Piano Tone
Building recently edited by Del Fandrich and available from The Foundation.
You've got to go along way to find hammers with no reinforcement in Steinway's
history. As Fred implies we can learn to work with these hammers, and frankly
despite attempts at conformity and consistency every set from every manufacturer
has and always will be different (such indulgent hyperbole) so you've got to
learn to build tone and knock it down, both brillance and carry.
I for one am grateful. If tone weren't such an issue I wouldn't have as strong a
reason to get out of bed in the morning, and we all know what the absence of
that could lead to.
Chris Solliday

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Fred Sturm <mailto:fssturm at unm.edu>  
To: College and University Technicians <mailto:caut at ptg.org>  
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer

On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote:



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?

Jeff


Hi Jeff,
I don't think you can argue that there was a grand design way back when (1920 or
before) to create the Steinway sound via felt impregnated with hardener. I agree
that they have decided today that that is the way they want to go, without
excuses or regrets, but I think they got there slowly. That's what the history I
have been able to gather tells me, regardless of the "official line" that "they
have always been that way." That's why I included the anecdote about Franz Mohr
in my earlier post. Why wouldn't the chief C & A tech be clued in if this was
really a planned company policy? Franz is one of the most true blue Steinway
guys around, and will tell you endlessly what a perfect instrument it is. So why
would he, just a year ago or so, tell me that the reason they used lacquer in
the 60s and 70s was because the hammers they had those days weren't good enough?
It just doesn't add up. 
I'm happy with current policy and production. I can work with it, and lots of
pianists and techs are satisfied, regardless of other arguments. But let's not
try to re-write history. 

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070922/b22ffa04/attachment.html