"New/Old S.B. Wood"

[Steve Pearson]

Sorry, this is sort of long...Strads, and any other old fiddles for that matter, do continue to serve well for centuries.  that is not to say, however, that they do not need a lot of TLC along the way.  After a  hundred years or so,  it is common to have fitted a violin with a new bass bar, and wood or parchment patches where the original top has cracked or failed.  Antique value makes practical the tons of work keeps these guys playing.  It has to be said, however, that in 'blind' competitions, new violins by skilled makers frequently beat out the instruments of the old masters, including Strads, Guarnieris, and the rest of them.  "New" Old instruments, like the 'Earl of Plymouth' Strad, which was found some  years a go, in an uncompleted  state -  it had never been strung - exhibit the same 'stiffness' and require the play-in time of a brand new instrument.  Quality modern instruments are made with old wood, 80-100 years being the minimum standard. So how does all this apply to piano soundboards?  That is unclear, but the kind of extensive work feasible on a relatively simple violin belly would be wholly impractical in a piano.  Given the huge tension and downbearing, not to mention the stability imparted by the cast iron frame, the differences are perhaps too great to allow any direct comparison.  I recently played a Maggini violin,  a Gaspar da Salo viola , and an Andrea  Amati 'cello, all  from the late 1500's. The violin and viola were glorious.  Strong voiced, responsive and carried well.  The cello was as dead as the proverbial doornail.  why?  Who knows.  A new top or soundboard could make this instrument speak again.  Unfortnately, it would also destroy its value.  Go figure.  The practical string player, who owns such an instrument from a great maker, is often to be found playing a modern copy of their antique instrument, 'saving' the old one for posterity.  Typically, the new one sounds and plays far better than the original it copies.  It is odd, but fortunate, that pianos do not seem to require the 
seems to make a lot more sense than the strictly antiquarian approach of the stringed instruments.  If you have a heart transplant, are you still you?  I would certainly be inclined to think so.
Steve P
Piano tech, violist, eccentric

>> <Daleboy@AOL.COM> 11/08 7:08 AM >>>
Dear Josep and List,	
	I read one response to this thread about the cellular composition of wood
becoming more "resonant" with age due to the loss of the "plasms' in the cells
of the wood thereby making it more responsive to vibration. True but, this
loss also indicates that the cell structure is breaking down. Some panels of
this  vintage S.B. wood may indeed have reached that point where the wood is
just at the right point of looseness or responsive......but..... What happens
to that same wood when you once again add the stress of crown and downbearing
pressure for another 20 or so odd years??
	It is perhaps a matter of practical engineering that new wood which can often
be of higher quality than the original soundboard material be used instead of
rebuilding dead wood. Why risk the possible structural failure of the
soundboard and components when one could greatly increase the chance at giving
the customer back an instrument that could go for 20+ years or more before
needing another rebuild?? All soundboards come into their own optimum
resonance with some peaking at a much faster rate than others it seems.
	The old analogy of "The Stradivarius" was once again used......thus comparing
apples to oranges again. I don't understand why techs will do this from time
to time. I've never heard of a vintage "Strad" being rebuilt with a new top
have you?? Is there a burial ground for those things once they're dead or do
they all wind up at the Smithsonean. (I know little about "Strads")
Sincerely,
Dale Whitehead, RPT
Franklin Piano Restorations
TN