[CAUT] Lacquering Steinway Hammers

[Jorgensen, Michael L]

Hello All,
     Try Schaff "Bright Tone" hammer head solidifier, Pg 90 Cat#499-8.  This stuff smells like, looks like, and I suspect is pure good old fashioned lacquer in a very strong solution, (perhaps even 1:1)   They warn not to let this go into the strike point. My gut feeling was to dilute to about half or more.   They also sell "Hammer Felt Hardener"  Same page, Cat# 1404.  This is a strong acetone-white plastic mix that can be used on the strike point.  I would stick to the lacquer for the initial hardening as I don't think acetone-plastic is hard enough.  I prefer the sound of 10:1 lacquer acetone mix where it goes on the strike point to the plastic stuff.  
    You probably can't ruin the top octave and a half of Steinway Hammers by over lacquering.  Simply pull one off and soak it in pure lacquer thinner for three days and start over if you think you have.  Change the thinner once a day as it will turn yellow each day.   Re lacquer before it dries and let it set a few days before playing. 
    The mistake is NOT being aggressive enough on that first application, for after it dries, it may block future applications, or if it doesn't penetrate deeply enough, will create a hard outer shell supported by soft felt.  It will sound good but won't come up to fortissimo.  I don't think one needs to do the strike point until last, as that area is always accessible.   If one has created a hard outer shell, it is sometimes possible to come in from the sides of the hammer with the action placed on end and get lacquer deep into and around the mounding area.  Also lacquering down low, below the staple is very affective.     
    I prefer to stay out of the strike point below about the top 20 notes until one is all done, building up a strong support base.  Latter you can bring up the strike point with a drop of acetone lacquer, maybe 10:1.  
    A top nationally known rebuilder I know,  (but will protect his name), confessed  "I end up throwing away about 1/3 of them" when doing Steinway Hammers.  If he can do that, the average tech shouldn't feel bad about throwing away half of them, so next time I'm going to order two sets and figure it into the cost.  For those who just avoid this mess and use other brands, I say, that there is nothing like the sound of a lacquered hammer, especially in the mid-range and bass.   When they turn out good, they can be really good, though they don't all turn out that way.  IMHO, an ideal might be genuine Steinway for the lowest 60 notes switching to a different brand for the top. From having replaced many single hammers here and there, I know it is possible to voice them so no one could tell without looking..  
    I wish Steinway would prelacquer all of there hammers with that first vital first step so they are at least in the "Acceptable range of hardness" when they come out of the box.  That little bit of work would save us an awful lot of loss and grief, and would probably get a lot more people using them.
-Mike    

> ----------
> From: 	caut-bounces@ptg.org on behalf of Russell Schmidt
> Reply To: 	College and University Technicians
> Sent: 	Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:47 AM
> To: 	Caut@ptg.org
> Subject: 	[CAUT] Lacquering Steinway Hammers
> 
>         Hello everyone, My name is Russell Schmidt. I have been the piano technician at the University of Kentucky School of Music for the past three years. I've been subscribing to the CAUT list but this is my first posting.
> 
>        I am currently working on lacquering a set of Steinway hammers on a newly rebuilt Steinway "M". I had been reading extensively in the CAUT archives many helpful comments on this topic and I was happy to see this topic addressed in the Q&A Section of this months (Novembers) PTG journal. 
> 
> One thing I took note of was the specification made by Mr. Schandall of Steinway, that the lacquer used by Steinway was a " water-white nitrocellulose lacquer with 12 percent solids by weight. This is the first time I have seen this specification, mentioned and wonder if this might explain the results I have been getting.> 
> 
>      I have only been able to locate two lacquer products sold locally. Neither had this spec.listed on the label. By calling the company I found that the one product I have always used when applying lacquer, "Deft" Clear Wood finish, was nitrocellulose lacquer with a solid content of 26% by weight! The other product I located made my "Watco" was also a nitrocellulose lacquer with 26%-27% solids by weight.
> 
>     Could this mean that a 3:1 solution of "Deft" lacquer was more like a 1:1 solution of "Steinway" lacquer, since both would be around 6% solids ( by my rough calculation)?
> 
>       Now, I am now wondering how meaningful the various opinions are about the strength of the lacquer solution 15:1 3:1 etc. , without a specification of the solid content of the lacquer being used. 
> 
>      I reread the Q&A comments made by Mr. Otto Keyes who did not specify a lacquer/acetone ratio but basically stated that the key to success in lacquering hammers, was using a solution that was diluted enough to allow the  hardening agent to penetrate to the desired depth. This statement started to make more sense to me stated in this way. What I needed was not a 3:1 or 5:1 solution, but a solution with the hardening agent diluted just enough to reach the core for my initial application. Too "thick" a solution would not penetrate to the core, while a solution too "thin" would not provide enough hardening effect, and block the penetration of latter application (according to the theory).
> 
>      My question now is how much I should dilute my lacquer (26% solid by weight) to come up with this properly diluted solution that would be equivalent of a 3:1 "Steinway lacquer solution". I came up with a 7:1 solution as the answer but my results make me think this is too weak.
> Or, would anyone know of a source for the lacquer used by Steinway or similar product. According to the Stienway parts department, they do not sell it.
> 
> 
>     Thanks in advance for any comments on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
>        Sincerely,
> 
>       Russell Schmidt 
>