Sohmer

[Lynn Rosenberg]

        I find you're comments very interesting.  The first Sohmers I ever
saw were the 45 inch studio pianos.  I did see an old studio where the break
was csharp 29, and if my memory servs me correctly that piano was made in
the 30's.  I've seen many old Sohmer uprights, that had excellent scale
design, and were very stable pianos.  In regards to Us manufacturers, the
Aeolian plant out of East Rochester, made at one time George Steck, Fischer,
Chickering, Knabe and Mason & Hamlin.  In they're 45 inch studio pianos, all
but the Mason & Hamlin, they didn't make a 45 inch piano, everything was the
same, scale, plate, case, might have been fancier, but the big difference
was the name plate.  If you took off the name plate, which was held on by
screws, changed the name, fore example replace Steck with Fischer, the
pianos were the same.  they did that for years, different names but basicly
the same piano.  I get very suspicious when I see different makes of pianos
with the same scale breaks.  The Mason & Hamlin 50 as far as I'm concerned,
and I know this because I knew people who worked at Aeolian, was nothing
more than a 1940s Steck.  Lynn Rosenberg

----- Original Message -----
From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Sohmer


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Rosenberg" <Lynn@eznet.net>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: October 17, 2000 12:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Sohmer
>
>
> > Well, I maintained a Sohmer on a regular basis, and it became much more
> > stable when a climate control was installed.  I think the most
frustrating
> > pianos are the Steinway 1098 because the string spacing can't be
> maintained,
> > because of pressure bar and plate designed. I don't know why Steinway
> never
> > corrected the problem.  My big complaint about most new pianos is that
> > scales could be made better, and they're using to light, to heavy wire
or
> to
> > many wound strings.  Yes I agree that the tone in the low tenor section
is
> > somewhat thin on the Sohmer.  They should in my opinion have made the
> > section longer.  The tenor section should have ended at e flat, or
lower.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Funny you should mention this....
>
> I remember when the staff at the dealership I worked for at the time was
> introduced to this model -- the 45" scale -- and what a great deal of
hoopla
> and pumped-up excitement there was about this great new piano.  They were
> presented as All New Scales.  Completely New Designs, etc.
>
> My own view differed somewhat from that of the factory rep.  I did think
the
> pianos were well built -- the construction quality of the pianos I worked
on
> was excellent.  However, I didn't think they sounded all that great.
> Indeed, I didn't think they sounded, or played, much better than the
smaller
> consoles.  In fact, I could not hear much difference at all in the
scaling,
> so I measured them and, guess what, folks, they were identical.  To me
this
> did not represent All New Design.  The taller scale did not take any
> advantage whatsoever of the taller back, hence the disappointing
performance
> for its size.  (If memory serves, this was the same scale used in the
Sohmer
> Model 50 grand, another less than stellar design.)
>
> The Sohmer 45" plate was simply an extension of the shorter (42" ?)
console
> plate.  The only substantive difference between the two was the relocation
> of the hitch pin panel and a corresponding increase in the length of the
> backscale (in the bass section only, however).  Elsewhere the plate was
> simply extended down so that it reached to the bottom of the extended
back.
> And yes, the soundboard was somewhat larger.  But, so what?  By itself
this
> was of only marginal benefit.  The speaking lengths of both scales was
> exactly the same, top to bottom.
>
> This example of piano design was not original to Sohmer, by the way.  At
> least one other piano maker has used this expedient to come up with two
> models where only one existed before.  To me, this type of 'product
> development' is an indication of the degree of contempt a manufacturer has
> for the consumer.  Pretty pictures in a beautiful, four-color glossy
> brochure, a glib sales presentation and a good close will win out over the
> requirement for performance.
>
> As may be, Sohmer closed its doors just a few years after that.  I still
> wonder just what Sohmer -- along with a couple of other
now-out-of-business
> pianomakers -- could be if these had, indeed, been truly new designs.
Along
> with the enhanced performance that could have been realized through a
> well-researched new design.  The development costs would not have been
> appreciably higher and the production costs would have been identical, but
> the rewards of performance -- read that, market competitiveness -- would
> have been much higher.
>
> U.S. manufacturers have long considered the vertical piano to be the poor
> step-cousin to the real piano -- the grand.  Very little effort has been
> made to achieve the limits of performance that can be achieved in these
> smaller packages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Del
>
>