Collard & Collard Patent Repeater Action, London

[Stéphane Collin]

Hi Ron.

Of course, I agree 100 % with all what you said.

I must apologize once again because I didn't get right the post or Terry. 
This appears to happen often to poor me (ask RicB, he is used to it).

Certainly, an untouched antique and a perfectly playing piano reflecting the 
original design are two different things, and indeed there is a strange, 
irrational behaviour amongst the antique pianos customers, wanting an 
untouched original instrument in perfect playing condition.  On this topic, 
I also would like to hear Anne's opinion.  I know Pierre Gevaert is 
constantly struggling with his heads in the Brussels museum, who constantly 
say : make it work, but don't change anything (in an attempt to please and 
the pianist and the historian).  But this is the land of the most curious 
things, as I often hear that no copy nor severely restored antique sounds 
like some happy few glorious untouched antiques.  What is the part of 
predisposed mind in this ?

Now, regarding strings, what is better : the original stuff (known to be at 
that time very carefully selected) or modern stuff at best only approaching 
only some of the physical features of the original ?  In my opinion, the 
original stuff, if not breaking, will speak more for the original design. 
Modern stuff anyway needs rescaling to function properly, and will alter 
much the tonal characteristics of the instrument (maybe in the good 
direction, but not in the original one).

About the hammers, my opinion will differ : the original hammers are most of 
the time worn to the molding, or at least, they don't have the resilience 
characteristics anymore that they once had.  So even if modern felt is not 
what ancient was, it will better speak for the original design than original 
worn hammers do, methink.  Yet, some old hammers still do well, and create 
strong emotions, even if they certainly are not the original emotions.

About soundboard, yet another story.  In princip, I would agree that a new 
board made to copy the original would be closer to the original design in 
sound and performance, again nonobstant the fact that we don't have the same 
wood anymore, nor cared for in the same extreme ways they did once.  But 
then, my opinion is that aging is a positive parameter in some happy 
soundboards, who truly gain personnality with time, and good vibrations.  So 
for me, a new soundboar would get the clock back to 0 h 0 minute, that is : 
not the best advocate of the instrument.  But that was probably the same 
situation back then.  Nothing is simple.

Curiously enough, once again, all other parts in the piano are less subject 
to religious extremisms, at least among customers.  Maybe the french polish, 
which a new one hardly can compare to the original if well preserved.

Best regards.

Stéphane Collin.






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net>
To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: Collard & Collard Patent Repeater Action, London


Stéphane Collin wrote:
> Terry,
>
> I really don't mean to be sarcastic here, but you show the limits of your 
> interest in pieces that witness the glorious tradition of our craft. 
> Fortunately, there still are people wanting to exchange the profit thing 
> against the historic trip.  Apparently, also in the USA (nice to observe 
> that).
>
> With all due respect.
>
> Stéphane Collin.


Stéphane,
This attitude always puzzles me, as it universally ignores
something I consider to be of fundamental importance. When
this was a state of the art design, it was new. The strings,
leather, felt, and whatever else it is composed of were fresh
and functioning at their highest level. To adequately
reproduce the performance this instrument was capable of when
it was built, the better to show all due reverence to the
history of our craft, we owe it to the builders to evaluate
their work as nearly like they did it as we can, not from the
shabby remains of a 150 year old carcass that they themselves
would not likely have wasted their time patching up.
Historically, this piano has never existed until right now. It
was something considerably different when it was new and
accurately representing it's builder 150 years ago.

So which is more important to paying historical homage to
ancient pianoid artifacts, The best performance the design and
materials of the time permits, or the accumulated dust? If
we're interested in the art and craft of the builder, let's
make the piano capable of reflecting that by gutting it and
replacing everything necessary with new materials of as
similar quality and performance characteristics as we can
manage. If we want to pretend the piano still works and sounds
like it did when it was built, and that replacement of
anything would diminish it in any way, then we have a display
artifact that we shouldn't do anything at all to. Careful
reproductions can then be built to explore the performance
potential without destroying the original.

In patching up a 150 year old piano to "play" again, we're
serving neither the historical legacy or our craft, nor the
performance needs of the pianist. What we're doing is creating
a disposable toy out of something that is irreplaceable, or
outright junk, while pretending to be concerned about both
conserving a heritage that is no longer alive in the piano in
question, and the needs of a pianist.

That's my take, such as it is.
Ron N