[pianotech] Glue for hammers - question

[Ron Nossaman]

Ed Sutton wrote:
> I am curious what the arguments or evidence may be for the tonal 
> superiority of a rock solid hammer to shank joint.
> 
> A rattling joint is not good, but what is lost if there is a small 
> degree of flexibility in the glue?
> 
> The hammer felt itself is definitely flexible by design, and not rock hard.
> 
> The hammer is not being driven when it reaches the string, it is moving 
> by its own inertia.
> 
> It is generally considered desirable that the hammer stay in contact 
> with the string a period of time, and not rebound instantly.
> 
> Eugene Thorndahl, the former glue chemist at Peter Cooper, suggested to 
> me that a small amount of glycerine added to hide glue would give it a 
> little more flexibility, and produce a more dependable hammer joint, but 
> he was addressing the strength of the joint under stress, not acoustic 
> issues.
> 
> Ed Sutton

And don't forget the action bedding, and the flange pinning, 
and the backcheck height (2mm below the tail at drop), and the 
front rail punchings, and the coupling of the casters to the 
floor, and the room acoustics, and the front leading in the 
keys (for inertia control), and the hammer needling and 
lacquer application techniques and locations, and the duplex 
scale tuning, and, of course, the A-4 pitch and temperament 
choice. Why, with all this sterling ammunition, are these 
things still being endlessly debated as if they were real? All 
evidence considered, it doesn't seem to much matter, since 
it's not apparently possible to make the right set of choices 
in *any* specific situation.

If all this nonsense still hasn't been hashed out by now in 
the real world of day to day piano service, what's the point?
Ron N