<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>And so, if hammers were replaced by technicians in the field who didn't know to, didn't know how to, or chose not to use lacquer or shellac, this would explain why someone would find hammers from a NY 1920s D to not contain anything but felt.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>My question would have to be that if the ideal hammer was one that did not require lacquer -- if the sound they are looking for really required a hammer that did not require lacquer, then why spend $1 million plus <<recently>> on a new hammer press to manufacture hammers that still require lacquer? How much sense does that make?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Why not just call up Renner and say, hey guys, pick up production -- we're switching to your Wurzen hammers because they produce the sound we've always been searching for?</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Jeff</DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Hi Jeff,</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>I don't think you can argue that there was a grand design way back when (1920 or before) to create the Steinway sound via felt impregnated with hardener. I agree that they have decided today that that is the way they want to go, without excuses or regrets, but I think they got there slowly. That's what the history I have been able to gather tells me, regardless of the "official line" that "they have always been that way." That's why I included the anecdote about Franz Mohr in my earlier post. Why wouldn't the chief C & A tech be clued in if this was really a planned company policy? Franz is one of the most true blue Steinway guys around, and will tell you endlessly what a perfect instrument it is. So why would he, just a year ago or so, tell me that the reason they used lacquer in the 60s and 70s was because the hammers they had those days weren't good enough? It just doesn't add up. </DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>I'm happy with current policy and production. I can work with it, and lots of pianists and techs are satisfied, regardless of other arguments. But let's not try to re-write history. <BR><DIV><DIV>Regards,</DIV><DIV>Fred Sturm</DIV><DIV>University of New Mexico</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>