Wurzen felt

[David C. Stanwood]

>
>> David has some information that goes exactly to this point dating back
>pretty
>> far. It seems to me that given the back and forth of the use of monster
>hammers
>> throughout the last hundred years also points in this direction. You find
>> quotes pointing in this direction quite a few places throughout history,
>tho I
>> have not made any particular effort to catalouge them.
>>RicB
>
>The "monster hammers" of times past were monsters in physical size only.
>They were not monsters in terms of mass or density. The high-density and
>high-mass hammer is a much more recent phenomena brought on by the
>perceived needs of mass production.
>
>Del
>

Hi Del,

This quote from Dolge in "Pianos and their Makers" is not about physical
size only.  It's about weight:

"As far back as 1873 the author made, in the factories at Dolgeville, N.Y.,
for Steinway & Sons, hammer felt one and three fourth inches in thick in
bass and weighing 22 pounds to a sheet, which measured 36 inches wide and
43 inches long.  This extraordinary thick felt was used for concert grand
piano hammers, and although splendid results were achieved, the heavy
hammer affected the touch too  much."

Steinway uses 18 lb felt. today..

By the way.... I hate hard heavy hammers as much as anyone... but a dense
but not too hard, resilient, 1/2 to tophigh hammer weight that is leveraged
and balanced properly with the right belly gives a beautiful old tone....
I'll try to get more information on recordings I know of with this type of
hammer...  a listen might be worth a thousand words...

I'm hopping on a train Weds morn so I may be silent for a few days...

Love the chat on hammers etc....!

Cheers,

David