<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C4C7C6.9E16C180">  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple = style='tab-interval:.5in' id="role_body" bottomMargin=7 leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7> <div class=Section1> I didn’t = miss your point.  The issue speaks to = the number of applications that are typical in terms of Steinway’s recommendation and whether or not the solids content is the only factor = that determines density building.  There are different approaches to lacquering ranging from Ed McMorrow’s of using a seemingly dilute solution and many applications, to those who advocate a one application approach and a stronger solution.  Interestingly, since we = don’t know the solids content of the lacquer that McMorrow used, it may be that his solution was, in fact, not any different than the one Steinway generally advocates.  You can certainly get a satisfactory result, at least in the short term, = either way.  How the hammer develops = over time or the stability of the voicing that results may be another matter.   Of course, we can each go out = and get a gallon of lacquer and start experimenting (which I have done), but it = might be useful, as a starting point, to see what the general guidelines are from = those who advocate and have daily experience with this approach.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </div> -----Original = Message----- From: = caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On = Behalf Of Erwinspiano@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November = 11, 2004 7:42 AM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] = Lacquering Steinway Hammers <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div>   = <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p= > </div> <div>   Hey David<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  You missed my point entirely. But that's OK. My point was get some lacquer then  try some on sample hammer & see what happens, = Whatever solids content it is can be adjusted by thinning unless the solids are incredibly low.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   Dale<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue = 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> I think it’s worth knowing = whether or not different lacquers will produce different results at similar = dilution levels.  There is quite a = bit of difference between 12% and 26% solids if you are using a 3:1 = dilution.  If Eric Schandall is correct in his report, then the solution advocated by Steinway is a = fairly light solution.  This might = explain why different people report using various dilution levels and seem to = achieve similar results.  Using a = high solids lacquer with a 3:1 dilution may produce a hammer that has a much = higher concentration of lacquer than is desirable or that will develop well = over time.  With all the talk = recently about “over lacquered hammers” and the wonders of Wurzen, I think it’s a microscope worth = looking through.    = <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> David Love <st1:PersonName>davidlovep= ianos@comcast.net</st1:PersonName> <o:p></o:p> </div> </blockquote> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p= > </div> </div> </body> </html>