Excuse me for not pasting in all the posts that I am commenting
on here:
I share the notion that the best pianos are new ones. I also
hold the belief that old Steinways can be spectacular. Pianos must be
considered individually. My own piano, a 1927 Steinway M, is a very
good specimen that I wouldn't trade for anything that I can think of.
But, I service an early 30's M that is such a dog I expect it to bark.
Pianos begin their inexorable march towards their inevitable
deaths as they are being built, not later. The variability of wood
and, consequently, of pianos is a source of constant fascination.
Some pianos go wildly out of tune, some just don't; some pianos
deteriorate quickly and become unusable, while others seem to remain
serviceable forever; it may just be the luck of the draw.
A cynic might say that rebuilders only prolong the death of
pianos.
I was trained as a rebuilder. I once spent a day and half(!), as
an apprentice, pulling the pins from the long bridge of an ~1890
Steinway C. That particular bridge, made from stunningly dense wood,
was still intact after 90 years. But each one of us piano technicians
is likely to have seen bridges that were failing after less than ten
years. In order to guarantee the quality of our rebuilding work,
bridge cracks, both visible and invisible, and other deterioration of
the bridges must be dealt with as a normal part of rebuilding. I was
taught that any piano being restrung without a new brige or bridgecap
should have the bridge pins pulled and reinstalled with epoxy as a
matter of course. The joke is, "When the strings are off, the
bridge pins must be pulled, unless the piano itself comes up with the
pins in the attempt."
Thin, syrupy, slow-curing epoxy will find its way into the cracks
and crevices, increasing the structural integrity of the parts. You
will find no better demonstration of the existence of unseen bridge
cracks than pushing a bridge pin down into its epoxy-soaked hole only
to see another bridge pin as much as a foot away ooze back out of its
hole as the first pin is pushed down. It can be entertaining (if
you're in the right mood) getting all of the pins to stay in place
when for each pin that is pushed down one or more others come back
up.
I don't know that I would go so far as to describe an epoxied
bridge as "better than new," but it will be much improved. By the
way, I was taught to be very wary of installing over-sized bridge
pins, especially without epoxy; the idea was that
larger-than-original pins, installed without epoxy, could actually
exacerbate the cracking and worsen the condition of the bridge, rather
than improving it.
And also by the way, I suppose epoxy can be used successfully in
pinblocks, but I have never used epoxy for pinblocks because I have
had some unhappy experiences dealing with the after-effects of tuning
pins that were driven back into pinblocks before the epoxy had cured.
I simply don't buy the notion that one can turn the pin at some point
and reliably break its bond with the epoxy. I have pulled epoxied
pins because they were not holding/tuning correctly only to find them
coated with clumps of epoxy -- no wonder they weren't working right.
Exercise extreme caution.
And by the way yet again, it is easy to imagine that the bridges
that would give the best results would be those in which the bridge
pins are firmly seated in the bottom of their holes. However, I know
from painful experience that Steinway has not always carefully
controlled the depth of bridge pin holes. If you attempt to bottom
out bridge pins in bridges where the depths of the holes were not
controlled, a bridge pin could easily disappear completely into a
bridge. It happened to me; I don't want to talk about it. The
possibility that there might be empty space beneath bridge pins is
another argument, I think, in favor of epoxying bridge pins.
Kent Swafford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC