NEWS FLASH! "Conover clobbers Steinway !"

[gordon stelter]

Dear Folks,
     For years I've been blabbing randomly about how
much I love Conovers: the BEST piano you can "still
get cheap", because nobody ( practically ) has heard
of them. 
     ( Well, gee, I guess I just ruined THAT! )
     And I've been telling people ( GASP! ) that I'd
rather play one than a Steinway..... 
    Well, I finally got them "side by side", so to
speak: an unrestored, 1918 Conover "77" ( 5'8" ) and
its approximate counterpart, a 1923 Steinway "M".  As
far as I'm concerned, that settles it! The Conover is
MUCH more sturdily built, and has a rich, warm,
enveloping bass that the Steinway only approaches.
     Of course, the Steinway has that "signature"
sound that hard-core Steinway lovers will always
insist on!  But, for my tastes, the Conover is, and
will always be, twice the piano the Steinway is,
regardless of how it is restored. 
    Best of all: I got my last 2 Conovers for $350
each!
    Well, I've really "spilled the beans" now. But
nobody ever accused me of being a wise businessman
...... 
    My one "Conover Complaint"?, Big fat sharps, just
like the Mason and Hamlin. A friend told me that Gerz,
who helped design the Mason at the end of the 19th
century, was also "instrumental" in helping  design
the Conover.  He also said that Cable briefly owned
Mason, and both of these statements seem to "ring"
true, considering the sharps, the 
W,N & G actions, the simplified "Tension Resonator"
found on some Conover grands, and the tonal
similarities. ( The Conover is not quite as "mellow"
as the Mason, but it's close. )
     And I have my own silly theory about the sharps. 
The Masons were dignified, religious folk ( one of
them wrote several famous hymns ), and perhaps simply
not interested in having their pianos spread the
Ragtime craze which was then sweeping the world.  The
big fat sharps assisted in this, by impeding the
possibility of playing fast! I have a friend who plays
like Tatum ( and is VERY religious, as am I ) but he
dislikes Masons and Conovers for this one reason.
    The good news: I think the sharps are merely
fatter at the top because their sides are not canted,
but straight up and  down. I believe their bases are
the the standard width, and they can be relaced with
normal sharps, for this reason.
     And speaking of which: the 1904 Ivers and Pond I
am working on has NARROWER than normal sharps, which I
LOVE !!! It is a  breeze to play because of this, and
the beautifully balanced action with short keys, etc..
 
     Blab out.
     Thump




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com