Mason&Hamlin --- 50 "

[Lesher, Trent J.]

Hi Mike, List,

I can lend supporting evidence to this.  I ended up with a 1972 M&H Model 50 a couple years ago.  Seems to me to be a good instrument with some real potential in a lot of ways -- but many things were done in a mediocre way and/or with mediocre materials.  The action is one of them.  Mike you could probably give more technical details of how the earlier (Pratt-Read?) differs from the Renner, but some of things I've noticed include fabric of some sort being used throughout instead of buckskin (even on the hammer butts), hammer shanks that seem unusually resonant when they fall back against the rest rail, some notes with sort of short buzzing noises somewhere in the wood parts of the action upon hammer impact and, especially in low humidity, an annoying general noisiness in the action like a bunch of dried insects rattling around.  

The most off-putting aspect of this Model 50 when it first arrived here a couple of years ago, however, was to me a thick, punchy tone in the tenor and lower midrange that also led to very congested sounding harmony (and made the alto sound even more caustic than it had to by comparison).  I remember this exact same piano sounding obnoxious in exactly the same ways 25 years ago. This was dramatically improved by stiffening the areas around the bottom of the lower bridge and the tenor end of the bass bridge.  After that, it was more open, chords voiced better and the piano had a better balance overall, and the tone gradually and evenly deepened as you played downards from alto to bass, and it seemed to have a warmer and more harmonious sheen too.  So I think these pianos, even the 60's and 70's ones, are worth trying to bring the potential out of.  

I say this only with a slight disclaimer as to my objectivity and experience in judging piano potential.  As I commented to Dave Stahl the other day, when I get involved with a piano (or anything) and don't have much else around for comparison, I sometimes imagine I've stumbled into the world's best-kept secret because I'm so amazed and captivated by what it CAN do.  And I guess I just adapt to or take in stride whatever it can't (at least until I play something that's much better in some way that allows a different musical vocabulary, and then I miss it when I go back).  All I have to compare the M&H directy to is a worked-over, but nonetheless rebuilt 1921 Bush & Lane upright.  Plus indirect comparisons with a various other pianos I play from time to time.  In that light, it comes off reasonably well, and the two pianos right here are different in ways that complement each other, so it's fun to have them both around.  Although I currently prefer the Bush & Lane quite a bit for certain (partly indescribable) qualities it has that the M&H does not, there is some vice-versa here, such as a brawny quality in the tenor and mid&upper bass, and a more brilliant treble, that the M&H has and the B&L does not, and I still play the M&H because it has musical merits of its own.

So I guess what I'm driving at is that I've heard some on the list occasionally dismiss pianos with a lot of problems or compromises, shortcuts, or economies taken.  I often think there may be someone who enjoys it for what it is, maybe even hears or knows how to bring out things that the professional technician can't because he's too distracted by what it's doing wrong.  And a lot of the time, like in one of these Aeolian-era M&H's, I think they may be worth working with, within whatever budget the customer may have, to bring out potential that's been lying dormant for the pianos entire life so far.

Best regards,

Trent Lesher

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Spalding [mailto:spalding48@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:46 AM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: Mason&Hamlin --- 50 "


Patrick,

Yes, yes, absolutely!!  I service two M&H 50's.  One is from the 70's, and
th other from the mid-90's.   I have had the actions out of each for full
regulation.  The later one has a Renner action , clearly labeled as such. 
I don't remember whose label is on the earlier one.  The differences in
design, materials, execution, and of course, performance, between these two
actions is dramatic .  (The Renner is superior in every way)

Mike


> [Original Message]
> From: J Patrick Draine <draine@comcast.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 12/23/2004 6:35:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Mason&Hamlin --- 50 "
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2004, at 11:14 PM, <pianotech51@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I think its Rener
> >
>
> I think the original post gave a date of manufacture in the late 1970s; 
> if my memory on that is correct, I'm 99.99% certain it would have been 
> Pratt-Read.
>
> Patrick Draine


_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives


****** IMPORTANT NOTICE ******
This e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me
at (312) 207-1000 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.