[CAUT] lacquer

[Chris Solliday]

Fred, this is what i didn't want to get into, but in the interests of
clarity  you make exactly my point which as we BOTH HEARD at Dallas from Ron
(and I work with him on a more regular local basis) is that C&A just puts it
on the the SP. Your description of the egg shaped... is apt and the right
rationale. Although the "his tendency" is wrong, it is "the technique." If
you want to call it "a wee" be my guest. It was not my intention to speak
for others. But I will reiterate we are having success with this approach
and I suggest trying it first. Leave the shoulders flexible and without
wasting any time with the undercoat. Or not, have a ball. Best, Chris
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm@unm.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] lacquer


> --On Sunday, December 5, 2004 2:56 AM -0500 Chris Solliday
> <solliday@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> >  I absolutely defer to Eric S's teaching on the subject, but I think you
> > will find a different practice in C&A, and my current use of whatever
> > chemical hardener is some directly on the strke point only, and let it
> > fall over night to the core point, then voice with needles.
>
> Hi Chris,
> Actually, I think you will find that C&A and Eric are saying precisely the
> same thing. Eric is a part of C&A, works in the Steinway basement
alongside
> Ron Coners and the others when not assigned to teaching duties. And Ron is
> saying exactly the same as Eric - both at the class he gave in Dallas, and
> in private conversation, both in Dallas and in NYC. Ron _is_ saying that
> his tendency at this point is to apply directly down at the strikepoint,
> with the idea of allowing an egg-shaped zone of absorption which by-passes
> (omits) the lower shoulders, on the theory that it really doesn't matter
if
> any material gets there. Ron's a very open, forthright guy, who says what
> he has to say without beating around any bushes. Eric is teaching to apply
> so that the entire hammer is saturated. So there's a wee difference here,
> but not substantial. (We're talking first application. Second (and
> subsequent) might or might not penetrate to the core.)
> That's what I'm hearing, not only from Eric and Ron, but from John Patton
> and Kent Webb and various others. Different from what I heard 20 odd years
> ago, and 15 and I think as recently as 10. But it's a very consistent
> approach for the last several years (it's probably been a consistent
> approach on their part in C&A for much longer, but they weren't teaching
it
> in a consistent manner, at least to the general tech public).
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>