[CAUT] Steinway Style II questions

[Delwin D Fandrich]

I'm remanufacturing one of the early Type I (85-note, 8' 5") grands right now. 
 
There was no sign of stretcher/pinblock structural failure. In this case the
customer and I opted to install a pair of pinblock inserts rather than remove
the whole assembly and build up a complete new pinblock assembly. I'm still
debating whether or not to install some type of gap-spacer to help carry the
load. Once I get the major action parts installed and back in the case I'll see
how much room is available and decide at that time.
 
This instrument is getting a complete redesign--new soundboard & rib design, new
bridges, new scale, new action, etc.--and, based on previous work on these
instruments, I'm confident the results will be worthwhile. A caution is in order
here: These pianos originally had relatively low-tensioned string scales and
they should stay that way. I'm actually removing some tension from the scale of
the piano I'm currently doing. The piano now has a new tenor/treble bridge and a
log scale. As a result a significant hump in the middle of the tenor section has
been smoothed out. 
 
No attempt should be made to make these pianos into modern powerhouse
instruments. Properly redesigned and rebuild they are wonderful pianofortes.
They cannot be made into fortes.
 
Del
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Design & Fabrication
620 South Tower Avenue
Aberdeen, Washington 98520  USA
Phone  360.736-7563
<mailto:fandrich at pianobuilders.com>
<http://www.pianobuilders.com <http://www.pianobuilders.com/> >



  _____  

From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Bdshull at aol.com
Sent: January 17, 2007 9:21 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway Style II questions


Hi, David,
 
I've inspected a bunch of these in my early Steinway grand research, and rebuilt
one myself.
 
The exposed block is what's nice about the early 7'2" "Style II" (many 7'2"s
were "Style 1" before 1872).   Ed Foote refers to the pinblock tipping, and some
I've found are so tight the action can't be easily removed;  others are original
and still fine!   I used a cold roll steel bar between the two front
stretcher/pinblock bolts, FWIW.    Fit of pinblock to plate at the flange is
critical too.  There is very little horizontal plate support, only a little at
the flange;  no struts or webbing whatever.
 
Action conversions were often done by the factory at a later date.  Capstan use
began in 1875 by Steinway and many actions were converted - often the entire
wood frame and in some cases non-Erard action was replaced - this was done
earlier too, before capstans.   
 
I've found large amounts of lead too;  many times it's obviously installed
later, but Steinway was struggling with geometry;  the keystick ratio varied
from 62% to 70%, and didn't begin to approach the 2-1 ratio until 1880 (from
what I've measured so far).  Steinway's key front weight was pretty high on
actions during this period.  So one of the biggest challenges is getting the
action to play without feeling like it has too much inertia.  Theodore clearly
struggled with it because he came up with such a uniquely designed action to
solve this problem in the 1871.   Though most of these have also been replaced
with the modern repetition action by the factory, one exists in the 1872 6'8" in
the William Seward House in Auburn NY;  this piano has at most two leads in the
bass, mostly only one lead per key, and it has a "balance spring." 
 
Once you have had a good look at these early actions you begin to understand how
poor Anton Rubenstein might have felt at the end of his long American concert
tour in the early 1870s.   
 
I do an all-day seminar on the early Steinway grand and would be happy to accept
an invitation to your chapter if arrangements could be made.    I give the
two-class version at the CA State Conference this February 8-11 also.
 
Bill Shull
 
  In a message dated 1/17/2007 3:00:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
davidskolnik at optonline.net writes:

Greetings -
Ideally I'd like to hear from those who have had a good deal of experience
rebuilding these pianos, but I'd welcome any useful observations.  The
particular type in question is an 85 note, 3/4 plate (exposed block, angled
face), overstrung, agraffes to note 85, originally rocker action converted to
capstan.  

Given that it is an exposed block, do you alter your target tuning pin torque
from what it would be in a full plate block?

What are the tonal limitations of the upper treble of this type (no capo d'astro
bar)?  How far could you / would you go to address these limitations?  This
would probably best be addressed to those who are doing innovative
installations.  Are there inherent limitations in this design that would limit
the effectiveness of these modifications?

Were these keyboards originally heavily weighted?  I've seen one which starts
with about 10 (ten) 7/16" leads in A0. On first glance (un-disassembled) they
look original.

Thanks 

David Skolnik

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070117/d770ee8e/attachment.html