Wurzen felt

[David C. Stanwood]

>> >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."
>
>Yes, I've read this quote as well. Of course it tells us absolutely nothing
>about how heavy any individual set of hammers might have been. It also
>tells us nothing about their physical characteristics: how dense they might
>have been, how resilient they were, etc. We can be fairly sure they were
>cold pressed so we can assume they were probably softer and/or more
>resilient than anything common today. But even this is speculation.
>
>
>>
>> Steinway uses 18 lb felt. today..
>>
>
>And this, also, tells us very little about their characteristics. I read
>several years back of a Japanese company using "29 pound" felt on thier
>concert grand hammers. If this so-called specification actually meant
>anything the piano using these hammers would have been unplayable. As it
>turned out the hammers were pretty typical of most any Japanese concert
>grand.
>
>Del

Del

Of course your right about the 29lb hammers... no standards for sheet size
and even if we knew it doesn't tell us about the distribution of weight
across the sheet.  Steinway used Dolge presses for many years and it's
likely that the sheet sizes are the same size as from the early days in
Dolgeville... I'll do a little digging into Steinway sheet size and let you
know what I find.  It would tell us a little more....

In the mean time I'll sign off for a few days by saying I don't want to
argue about the goodness or badness of high, medium, or low zone hammer
weights.  It's safe to say that beautiful tone may be had from high,
medium, or low zone hammer weights and bad tone may be had from high,
medium, or low zone hammer weights and some rather average tone may be had
from high, medium, or low zone hammer weights.  It's a question of knowing
and balancing all the variables.  In defense of high zone hammer weights,
there are countless examples of fine pianos with high zone hammer weights
and I have data on a number of individual pianos with TopHigh hammer
weights produced in the factory and they have amazingly beautiful sound.
Fazioli and Steingraeber to name two.  Your not going to convince pianists
playing these pianos that they shouldn't be hearing such beautiful tone...

The best part about this whole conversation is that we all are talking,
thinking, and considering more about the quality of hammer felt, and the
weight of hammers in regards to voicing.  

Special thanks to Andre (Antares in the Netherlands) for starting off the
thread!

I'm off to catch my train to Colorado...
Regards and Cheers!

David