[CAUT] Steinway rebuilds

[Brent Fischer]

I'm going to take the high road on responding. Research proves mypoint, I'm just repeating it. Those who never miss any article's in "Fine Woodworking" on refinishing could point you to the articlethat I couldn't find in my archives. Proving stability differences isjust a mute point.  However, too many rebuilders use lacquer onboards because it's easy, not because it's in the best interest ofthe instrument.  The McCloskey Paint Company used to formulatevarnish for Steinway, why don't you call their chemist and get backto me.

--- On Tue, 2/15/11, Jon Page <jonpage at pianocapecod.com> wrote:

From: Jon Page <jonpage at pianocapecod.com>
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Steinway rebuilds
To: caut at ptg.org
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 6:39 PM


 
Brent
Fischer wrote: If you are spraying lacquer with sealers you might as
well include damper chasers for both sides of the piano. It's
semi-permeable as opposed to nearly impermeable with varnish and a
good sealer is using fresh German shellac flakes.


Is this another magic varnish myth?  Varnish is another
formulation of shellac.
Claiming that shellac in one form or another is more of a
moisture barrier
than lacquer causes some incredulity.


I'm not chemist or (Ron N could come up with a better made-up
word here)
guru but I've seem no difference in tuning between varnished
boards and
lacquered boards. Maybe it is because the boards I see are
reconditioned
with varnish on the bottoms and lacquer on the tops. Finish
Hybrids.


Maybe the vessel which holds this seed this thought has a
fisher.
-- 
 


Regards,



Jon Page
 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20110215/537c7fb9/attachment.htm>