Two interesting pianos (long)

[Bdshull@AOL.COM]

Hi, David,

Can't resist answering about the Steinway, as I am in the final stages of a 
similarly designed 7'3" 1878 Steinway.  About the Wissner, there was a thread 
recently.  The Wissners I have serviced seemed like Steinway knockoffs, but 
the one I know best had been given a new block by another tech, when it also 
needed a new board.  It basically had no 5th and 6th octave.  Would love to 
put a new board in it.

<< Encountered two interesting pianos today.  One was a Wissner 7' grand.  
Seems to be a well designed piano, plate design reminds me of a MH.  Anybody 
know anything about these.
 
 Second, I encountered an 1877 S&S D.  Eighty eight notes, open faced 
pinblock that slanted down toward the agraffes which ran all the way to note 
88.  Couple of questions.  I couldn't tell where or how the plate was 
attached to the front of the piano.  It almost seemed as if the pinblock 
overlapped the front of the plate or is mortised into and under the stretcher 
which is very heavy and thick.  What's that all about? >>

Yep.  This is a "Style 4" Steinway, consistent in design with the pre-modern 
Steinways built for over a decade (Style 1, 2, 3, 4 very roughly correspond 
to modern models A, B, C, D in length, so Steinway now refers to them by 
letter designation, although I have not seen letter references in writing 
from the period.)  The plate flange has a "horizontal aspect" (really angled 
same as the open face portion of the pinblock), so there are two vertical 
flanges, although the front, top flange is quite thin.  The top of this is 
where the duplexing is cast (or rests, depending on the piano).  Pinblock is 
glued and bolted to a shelf, then the cabinet is built tightly over the 
pinblock to make it a mortised pinblock without a shelf.  The stretcher is 
designed to control the pinblock's rotation, which it does poorly.  There is 
only one row of screws fastening the pinblock to the plate.  In some respects 
this design is similar to the Bechstein design which Bob Hohf discusses in 
three Journal articles of about 1996/7 - similar in the type of 
pinblock/plate flange relationship, but different in that the Bechstein has a 
perimeter plate which extends over the pinblock, and is designed to contain 
the pinblock's rotation but doesn't always do successfully, resulting in 
strut cracks on the underside, in back of the flange.  I understand this has 
happened on many of the 3/4 plate Steinways, too, and hope to reduce the 
chance of this by inserting a 1/2"x 3" cold roll steel bar into the 
stretcher/pinblock structure.  On my Style 2 the horizontal glue joint 
between the stretcher and pinblock was separated for the middle 3/4.

<< What pitch are these pianos designed for.  The piano had been restrung.  
Sloppy job with the coils overlapping and a good 1/2" plus off the block.>>

Amazing, defeats the purpose of the open face block!  My Style 2 had a short 
scale, particularly bad in the top 3 octaves.  Either the piano needed to be 
tuned at a higher pitch, which may have been the intention (thus Steinway's 
A457 pitch in that time period), or it used more flexible wire with less 
carbon content.  I wonder if there wasn't a little of both going on.  We ran 
the numbers on PScale and moved the bridge accordingly, while installing a 
new board.

<<The owners are considering restoring it and it will need a new board.   I 
notice also that the soundboard does not go all the way to the bass corner of 
the piano.  It is cut in at a 45 degree angle with a thick piece of wood 
glued to the edge.  Another triangular piece of wood fills the void in the 
corner with a number of heavy bolts that seem to be adjustable in order to 
apply pressure to the edge of the board (don't know how well I described 
that).>>

This purpose of this design is similar to the shortlived Steinway double-iron 
frame vertical piano from the 1860's and early '70's.  The patents are 
interesting to read (as usual for the period), arguing that by keeping force 
on the perimeter of the soundboard, the best tone can be produced.  However, 
Steinway soon abandoned the idea in the modern A/B/C/D designs of 1878-1882 
(in favor of the "acoustic dowels?").
My Style 2 does not have the perimeter flange/bolt system.  I would like to 
see one which is has it, properly restored.  Another example of that design 
was the Julius Bauer grand.  Bauer got a patent for it too, although it was 
basically the Steinway double-iron frame design in a grand piano.  Funny 
thing, like many of these old Steinways, many Bauers have the design without 
the actual bolts.

<<The owners are considering a full restoration job and the piano will need a 
new board and block.  Two initial questions:  What is the general nature of 
the block/plate construction and fit? >> 

As described above.  I agree with Bob Hohf on using epoxy for an extremely 
snug fit with no "give."  I have taken many photos of my Style 2, some of the 
side view of the stretcher and pinblock, showing the way it was constructed.  
It seems clear that the selection and placement of quartersawn planks was to 
rigidize the stretcher as much as possible to assist in retaining the 
pinblock's position as the tuning pin/string force rotated the pinblock at 
the flange;  a steel or cast iron bar seems to me to get more control of 
this, although I am not sure it is enough, either.  These pinblocks rotate up 
at the front and down at the flange. 

<<And is the soundboard design I have attempted to describe worth trying to 
duplicate?>>

Unless you hire Del to redesign it.  I remember Del expressing a fondness for 
those old board designs with the cutoff bars.  He and others may have 
something to say about the difference a lower pitch might make.  I will have 
my new board, which duplicates the old, strung up pretty soon, and will know 
more then.  

<<Remarkably, the action design seems that it will easily accommodate a 
modern retrofit.>>

But the back action is very 19th century.  No sockets, splitting levers.  At 
least a socket retrofit is necessary;  a sostenuto retrofit (I assume it's a 
two pedal piano) would require refitting a new action, plus other 
modifications.

<<And agraffes all the way to the top!!!   Why did they give that up?  No 
leaky, bleedy, buzzy stuff at the top even after all these years.>>

Well, the Style _ pianos I have seen have all had a duplex scale with the 
agraffes up to the top, and an even lower angle than the modern  capo type 
treble!  Some duplexes were cast into the plate (like mine), others had brass 
inserts (but the same basic design as my cast duplex).  There was plenty of 
leakage, too much, it seemed to me.  By slightly increasing the angle with a 
small halfround brass insert the tone usually improved.  I didn't like the 
additional accumulated stress this might have exerted on the 
plate/pinblock/strut assembly, and did not run any numbers to calculate what 
the increased force would be, but will probably do more speculating about 
this when I string up the piano.

<<Unfortunately, I think I know the answer the this question.  $$$!>>

No kidding.  This will definitely make you feel like a hobbyist unless you 
charge plenty, and warn the client of the risks, collecting a substantial 
non-refundable deposit.  But I have heard of excellent examples of these 
pianos.   If the cabinet hasn't been "modernized" it should be pretty 
valuable, helping to justify the expense.

Also, the cabinet is mortised, not continuous rim.  More veneering problems 
at sharp corners, but where you live the structure might have survived quite 
well!

Tell us about it if you do the job!

Bill Shull