Steinway V hammers

dm.porritt@verizon.net dm.porritt@verizon.net
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:49:20 -0500


Having read all the posts on finishing Steinway hammers, I feel the need to send a big Thank You card to Renner!

dave
============================================================
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
Date: 2004/04/26 Mon PM 02:34:29 CDT
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Subject: Re: Steinway V hammers

I would agree with that, though you can sometimes get the lacquer to
penetrate from the sides on a second pass.  I find that stronger solutions
are needed in the treble and weaker solutions in the tenor and bass.  Using
3:1 in the treble is fine; 4:1 or 5:1 in the tenor and no stronger than 5:1
in the bass.  If you like to saturate from the shoulders or straight down
over the strike point, then a couple drops of pure acetone on the crown
after the application will help with the pinginess.  Or, you can apply from
the sides.  Let it wick fairly close to outer layer, but not all the way. 
In the treble, you won't be able to avoid it.   It's under the crown that
is the most important place to get it.  The shoulders don't mean that much
on a lacquered hammer.  I still like the piano to play in a little bit
though.  If you need it at full speed now (like in a concert instrument)
you might have to go a bit stronger.  I would also concur with listening
first.  I have had some sets from Steinway recently that needed very little
and I have on a couple of occasions left the tenor and bass untreated at
all.  

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Bill Ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 4/26/2004 8:37:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Steinway V hammers
>
> At 9:51 AM -0400 4/26/04, A440A@aol.com wrote:
> >Steinway suggested 4:1 for a long time, but I remember Ron Connors saying
> >3:1 was now in use.   Be aware that the thinner mix goes into the hammer
> >deeper and spreads out more, so it doesn't get the same effect. 
> >This doping takes
> >some experience, and going a little conservative is probably easier to
recover
> >from than the opposite.
>
> I remember Frank Hansen (well-known piano tech in the NE for the last 
> sixty years) saying that as far as reinforcing hammers, you really 
> only had one pass to get it right. Shoulder or crown, you really 
> wanted the hardness on the inside instead of the outer layers. After 
> the initial pass, further waves of reinforcing wouldn't flow through 
> the felt mass as easily, and thus not as far.
>
> So you judged the initial doping based on the sound (and feel) of the 
> hammers, and how a limited set of samples (say, 1, 20, 40, 64 and 88) 
> would respond to a given strength of lacquer. The more passes you 
> have to make, the more the permeability of the felt becomes a factor 
> in where the reinforcer ends up or whether it does you any good.
>
> Kind of like solid tuning where you want to land it spot on with the 
> least amount of wire movement.
>
> Bill Ballard RPT
> NH Chapter, P.T.G.
>
> "Can you check out this middle C?. It "whangs' - (or twangs?)
>      Thanks so much, Ginger"
>      ...........Service Request
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives



_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
============================================================


David M. Porritt, RPT
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC