I suppose we need only look at history to note that nothing is likely to change in the state of human affairs. Stupidity always seems to prevail.? Hi Ron, Have you seen the movie "Idiocracy"?? It's a feature length elaboration on your closing thought. Cheers, Alan Eder -----Original Message----- From: Ron Overs <sec at overspianos.com.au> To: caut at ptg.org Sent: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? >On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:? >? >>>>? >>>>In both the piano in Reno, and the one in Rochester, Ron used a >>>>stock Samick laminated *panel*, not belly. The string scale, >>>>bridges, rib scale, cutoff bar, and whatever additional bracing >>>>he did to the rim were his own, and decidedly not stock. Yes, I >>>>was impressed.? >>> I thought the one in Reno was based on a rim with board already >>>glued in (ribs as well) and the stock plate. Then he made >>>modifications, including thinning the edges of the board and >>>fooling with front bearing, etc, etc. Maybe I got it wrong. >>>Certainly the one in Rochester was more his own.? >>? >>Or maybe I did. I'm old, and lose track. Maybe he'll post in and >>straighten us both out. In any case, what he did to the piano was >>far beyond anything I'd call "prep".? >>? >>Ron N? >? ? My recollection (and my memory is also a little hazy after 9 years, though I have a pretty vivid memory of that particular piano) is that Ron O told me he had taken a stock Samick piano and thrown away the action. Obviously he was using it to show off his own action. He did some modifications . . .? ? Fred and all,? ? What you are recalling is the very first piano with our action from 2000. The piano which came to Reno was a totally new piano, with a rim which was specially pressed for us. While it was pressed in the same rim press as the Samick 225, that's where the similarity ended. The standard Samick case used all Luaun (which seems to be getting called Mahogany recently), with a veneer of rock maple on the inner surface of both the inner and outer rim to make it look like the whole case was made from rock maple (the black painted surface of the underside of the rim helped here). However, the rims which were pressed for us were made entirely from rock maple. The belly rail and back beams where also 100% rock maple. Furthermore, the main body of the belly rail was 60 mm thick (a Steinway D belly rail is 30 mm). The plate was supplied completely undrilled and primed only. The soundboard was supplied as a panel. The bass and treble string scale was completely of my own design with new bridge designs. A large soundboard cut-off was fitted, but there was no treble cut-off in the Reno piano. The Rochester piano had a treble and bass cut-off. There was no soundboard weighting on the piano at Reno, but the Rochester piano had I-ribs and weighting. Both pianos had a laminated panel made from 100% spruce. The number 5 piano we built for Sydney Conservatorium has an I-rib board with a solid panel, and is much less stable in tuning compared to our other 225 pianos with laminated panels. I am convinced there is no tonal downside to using a laminated panel provided that it is made from all spruce. The only difference between the laminated and solid panel boards seems to be that the solid board has relatively lousy tuning stability. Nevertheless, Geoff Pollard at Sydney Con found that our no. 5 is more stable than the Steinway Ds at the Con, but our laminated panelled instruments are better again. Other features of my own design on the piano at Reno included the perimeter trenching of the soundboard panel, the chamfering of the inner ri m width adjacent to the lowest bass note. The agraffes were modified Kawai while the front capo terminations were all hardened bars. The front duplex design was my own. The pin block was epoxy fitted and envelope sealed. The standard plate horn to belly rail strut was retained on the Reno piano, with an additional strut added at the capo. The Rochester piano has three new plate to belly rail struts, one at the horn and two at the capo section breaks. The touch block detents and dags were revised for both pianos. The plate mounting system was our version of the Baldwin system. The bridge caps in the Reno piano had minor splitting in the top two sections. I found it before the piano left Sydney but I had to let it go since I was out of time to do anything about it before the exhibit. At Reno I showed Ron Nossaman, but as far as I know nobody picked it up. When we brought the piano back to Sydney we pulled it down, built our first multi-laminated bridge caps and fitted them to the piano before selling it.? ? Its amazing how many critics have talked down our pianos by claiming that I've just fiddled with a Samick. Steinway was getting their plates from Kelly long before they purchased the plant, but no-one would claim that their piano wasn't a Steinway. One of the leading German manufacturers is getting rims pressed by Samick (I'm not going to say who it is, so don't ask), but that manufacturer claims to be making an all-German piano. One of the Japanese makers is getting plates poured in China, but there's nothing in their brochure and no-one's talking about it. But the piano is still regarded as all Japanese. This whole 'country of origin' matter is in my opinion just more hogwash from some in the industry who like to feed on prejudice for marketing advantage.? ? All I can say to the critics is that our I-rib soundboards are keeping their stiffness and tone exceptionally well, and they look likely to outlast anything from the CC camp. A high end concert grand here in a major Australian city is just four years old and the soundboard has totally collapsed. The collapse is so severe that pianists seem to unanimously hate the piano. That's how I heard about it - many pianists had complained to me about the piano, so I sought and received permission to inspect it. I inspected it late last year and the downbearing had sunken to the point that it is negative to almost exactly the same angle as we set the boards in the positive when the pianos are first strung. This piano is such a disaster. I advised the orchestra's administrators and offered to supply the photographs I have taken along with my consultancy services, but they have chosen not to put in a warranty claim (there was one year remaining last year). This is pure madness and I believe the whole matter is a complete disgrace. Anyhow, I can do nothing further to promote the truth in this matter. The world very often seems to turn its back on the truth, and it seems to be happening once again.? ? I suppose we need only look at history to note that nothing is likely to change in the state of human affairs. Stupidity always seems to prevail.? ? Ron O.? -- OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY? ? Grand Piano Manufacturers? _______________________? ? Web http://overspianos.com.au? mailto:ron at overspianos.com.au? _______________________? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090421/1bb4b38a/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC