steinway

[BobDavis88@AOL.COM]

Dale Fox writes:

> I am now prepared for flames from those who think that only S&S parts
>  should go on S&S pianos.  Aim carefully.  I'm a red head and burn easily.

There are [at least] two major factors to the value of a piano after repair: 
performance and perception. Neither can be ignored. Our bias, as is yours I 
think, is toward a piano which performs well. There's plenty of room for 
discussion even here. There's a whole gamut of "authenticity" possibilities 
between the older Steinway concept, with light, flexible hammers, and short 
knuckle placement; and the later one, with more leverage, deeper dip, and 
heavier, stiffer hammers. There are some rebuilders who believe that even the 
original design should be modified to meet their personal concept of better 
performance. 

And speaking of authenticity decisions, it goes beyond nickel vs. blued pins 
(which by the way is a cosmetic, not a technical decision, as the threads are 
cut after the plating. I have been tuning a particular forty-year-old piano 
with nickel-plated pins about every other week for twenty-five years without 
trouble. In fact, when I restrung the treble I did it with the dummy coil 
method on the original pins). More:
Replace rim bolts w/new nickel plated?
Boxwood vs. maple bridge caps in the treble?
Changing rib configuration or soundboard taper w/new soundboard?
Does everyone use shellac/varnish on the sbd?
The new plate colors don't look like the old ones.
The old cases were varnished (or even shellac). How many people refinish in 
varnish? For that matter, are we destroying future value by refinishing at 
all? Watch the Antiques Road Show to see people getting beat up for 
refinishing their Philadelphia Highboys.
Are repetitions with adjustable jacks a routine upgrade or a removal of 
authenticity?
Every possible modern shank is heavier. To what lengths must we go to match 
the old ones?
How about changing capstan line or angle? or from hex to standard? or brass 
to aluminum?
The keyweighting concept went through several iterations, from lighter/toward 
the player, to heavier/toward the balance rail, and back and forth. May we 
"modernize" to reduce inertia?
"Upgrade" to Accelerated Action, either to meet modern specs or for perceived 
better feel?
Changing the damper back action to a different design? Flex tabs vs. original 
stiff?
Rebuilding vs. restoration vs. conservation vs. modernization vs. 
maximization etc., etc., etc.

As for perception of value, how about the client who  _insists_  on "Factory 
Parts?" In most cases our shop is successful in educating clients how the 
modern action differs from the action in his piano, and how modern action 
parts might not recreate the sound or feel his piano had originally. Even 
with the pre-1984 [Renner-made] "genuine" parts, the geometry will be similar 
but the factory hammers will be heavier than the originals. I would always 
prefer to use factory parts, but sometimes, it is easier to make it sound and 
feel like a Steinway by using non-Steinway parts, or a mix. Each action is a 
little different, although we do lean toward a lighter, more flexible hammer, 
even if it requires a little juice. Steinway has ALWAYS used juice of one 
kind or another.

Each of us picks a position somewhere on the scale, and my outlook is always 
changing. I do think it's important to discuss these concepts with the 
client. For a spec piano, we can each do what we want, but I still want a 
buyer to know our approach on a specific instrument. While I maintain that I 
can always find a market for a good-sounding Steinway no matter what kind of 
action parts it has, a few owners still insist on "authentic" in terms of the 
factory imprimatur on the parts used, even if this compromises performance, 
and for them, I will do my best. They have the right to decide how much 
market risk they perceive in ANY modification we do.
Bob Davis