1881-83 Steinway,#48638, image #2

[Ken Jankura]

The weight issue, unless only tonally related, doesn't make much sense. In
an experiment I did with a vertical action, the difference in downweight
with a 4 gram treble hammer and a 12 gram bass hammer was only 6 grams at
the key front, so I think the hole in the hammer molding would have no
effect at all at the the key. Tonally though, yes, maybe.
Ken Jankura rpt
Fayetteville PA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Bondi" <tito@philbondi.com>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: 1881-83 Steinway,#48638, image #2


> > The holes start at A5 and continue through to C8. The holes are clean
> > and symmetrical with no evidence of lead, or of any other after
> > market activity to my vision.
> >
> OK..we all believe you..pictures don't lie..but are you asking if a
> 'true-to-form' restoration of this part of the instrument involves the
> inclusion of these holes..or are you just curious as to why they are there
> to begin with?
>
> I'd say Greg's initial thought about weight reduction makes sense.
>
> Were manufacturers really THAT particular about weight back then? My guess
> is yes(I have yet to feel a 'heavy' action in a piano that is 80+ years
> old), but why would the reduction be in such a spot as the hammers
> themselves?
>
> Have you done any weight analysis to this action?
>
> I can't wait to do mine(it will be a few years, but it will be fun!),
>
> -Phil Bondi (Fl.)
> tito@philbondi.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>