My experience with having removed countless sets from pianos of that vintage (all models) is that they don't contain lacquer. That doesn't mean that lacquer wasn't added later. But I have had enough examples of non lacquered hammers from that period to lead me to believe that they weren't lacquered in production. My understanding is that the lacquer procedure came about much later in response to a change in felt production that rendered the out of the box hammer unusable. It came about empirically as the factory voicers experimented with ways to salvage an otherwise unusable hammer. I don't think one should apologize for having to use the stuff. If you choose a hammer that requires lacquer, you have no choice. I have certainly installed my share of lacquered hammers and had the opportunity to watch them develop over time. Until the last several years I didn't really like the non lacquered alternatives and continued to do the best I could with cotton and plastic. If I do say so myself, I got pretty good at it. That being said, I'll stick my neck out and say that a lacquered hammer is less desirable than a non-lacquered one. What advantage can there be to binding up elastic felt fibers that should, in my opinion, through the felting process create a nicely firm and tension hammer that exhibits good tone producing resilient qualities. Especially if the felt requires a 30 second dip in plastic in order to achieve some acceptable level of density. A lacquered hammer may sound ok for awhile, but it won't develop as well as the lacquer continues to harden. The amount of lacquer required does make some difference. Hammers that require very dilute solutions suffer less in the long run. Still, given a choice, I prefer unadulterated felt. I am more inclined to think that the myth is that lacquer was always used. The disservice is that the production of hammers using the age old but time consuming and less profitable per set felting process should have been abandoned in favor of cotton balls infused with lacquer or hammers petrified by the over use of heat pressing practices. As someone who definitely is an advocate for new technologies, sometimes the traditional does prove to be the best. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Wood Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:58 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer I keep hearing contradictory things about the nearly-mythical '20's Steinway piano hammers, particularly regarding the use of lacquer. Many independent technicians are convinced that they do not contain lacquer, or at least very little. This does not seem to agree with my experience. And I have asked at least 6 different, very knowledgeable, senior technicians employed by Steinway about it, and they all have agreed that to their knowledge, every Model D Steinway ever issued from the factory (NY) has had lacquer (or its precursor) in all 88 hammers. This includes Joe Bisceglie, who probably had the earliest involvement with the company. So, can any of you provide hard evidence of a factory hammer in a D without? I'd really like to know. This relates to my earlier post about the hammers being, actually, a composite. And the suggestion that Steinway developed its hammer, and its tone, including lacquer (or its precursor) as an essential element. I'd guess that most of you don't hold particularly to the purist notion that a no-lacquer hammer is by its very nature superior to a lacquered one--that we somehow should apologize for needing to use such awful stuff, or whatever. But this myth that in the golden days of piano manufacture the hammers were so great that lacquer wasn't necessary does the industry a large disservice. Doug Wood
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC