<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in this discussion is the geometry change, along with (or, more accurately, trailing a while) the hammer mass increase. This difference in hammer weight from early 20th century to 80s and thereafter is immense. This has a great impact on tone color, and, no doubt, on how hammers need to be treated. Best I can figure, the practice of complete soaking of hammers in lacquer began somewhere around the time of the 1984 action ratio change. That fact is suggestive to me. (I’m not up on differences, if any, in belly thickness and mass and the like that may have accompanied the hammer mass increase. The “diaphragmatic SB” patent came mid century, and may have increased mass/thickness of the central segments, with tapering around the rim).     Back to the history of lacquering “all Ds that left the factory,” I have heard many anecdotes over the course of my life, including my life as a piano student in small colleges in the hinterlands, where a pianist, piano faculty member, or the like would talk about when the new D was delivered, and how dead it was. “It needed to be played in for a couple years before it developed tone” is a composite of countless tales of this sort. I take this as additional evidence that lacquering as a standard practice for all Steinways is a recent development. There are just too many bits of evidence of many, many sorts leading in that same direction for me to believe the limited anecdotes in the other direction, like “we started using lacquer when it replaced shellac in the finish department.”     I am happy to believe that various hardeners were used, and maybe as a matter of course in C&A, from very early days, as a “voicing devise.” But the idea of saturating the felt, I feel quite sure, is far more recent. Saturating shoulders goes back, certainly, at least to the early 80s, probably quite a bit further. But lacquer into the area of the crown, saturating from the strike point to the molding? I think that is far more recent, and it is really where the issue becomes far more important. It creates a different animal entirely, I believe. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico On 9/22/07 1:48 PM, "Delwin D Fandrich" <fandrich@pianobuilders.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>As far as I have been able to determine that refers only to the shoulder hardening/reinforcing that has been common to Steinway (along with several others) since sometime during the late 1800s. It does not mean that any chemical hardening was used on the working portion of the hammer. During the mid-1970s I spent a week at the Steinway factory. During this week I was able to observe just about every step of the building process at my leisure, including hammer making and installation. At that time it was not common practice to automatically chemically harden the hammers. The hammers on those pianos that ended up in their own selection room may have been chemically hardened--that I wouldn't know about. But the pianos we received (including Model Ds) showed no evidence of chemical hardening. And, no, I didn't have them chemically analyzed but they were reasonably soft and resilient with needles going in smoothly and easily. In those days replacement hammers came to us without any chemical hardening and they felt and voiced just like the hammers we were finding in the new pianos. Del Delwin D Fandrich Piano Design & Manufacturing Consultant 620 South Tower Avenue Centralia, Washington 98531  USA Phone  360.736-7563 <mailto:fandrich@pianobuilders.com>     <BLOCKQUOTE><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="100%">From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris Solliday Sent: September 22, 2007 10:32 AM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer In fact Steinway has been reinforcing hammers chemically since at least 1911. It may not have been  lacquer per se but... see the discussion in Piano Tone Building recently edited by Del Fandrich and available from The Foundation. You've got to go along way to find hammers with no reinforcement in Steinway's history. As Fred implies we can learn to work with these hammers, and frankly despite attempts at conformity and consistency every set from every manufacturer has and always will be different (such indulgent hyperbole) so you've got to learn to build tone and knock it down, both brillance and carry. I for one am grateful. If tone weren't such an issue I wouldn't have as strong a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and we all know what the absence of that could lead to. Chris Solliday <BLOCKQUOTE>----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Sturm <mailto:fssturm@unm.edu>   To: College and University Technicians <mailto:caut@ptg.org>   Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] S&S Hammers and lacquer On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>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. 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? 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? Jeff </BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Jeff, 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. 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. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm@unm.edu </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>