Reshaping VS new hammers - Condition etc

[Bob Luderer]

Richard & List,
Well, the hammers are worn, I haven't measured the depth but I would
approximate it to be about 75% of string height. Some people consider the
action on my instrument to be heavy, however these are people who usually do
not play Steinways.  My action weight is comparable to other Steinways that
I have had the opp to play.  I like the action the way it is and was afraid
that reshaping would negatively impact the action dynamics.  I am loathe to
put ANY lubrication in the action, this in my mind is a shortcut not worth
taking.  

This is a 1927 M that was reconditioned in 1965. The rest of the instrument;
soundboard, bridge and dampers are original and in excellent condition,
although some dampers are starting to wear.   The action is a tad worn, but
not in need of an overhaul, its the hammers that are close to shot.  Finish
was changed from ebony to walnut, finish is spidering and will need some
work after the playing aspects have been redressed.  Pin block is original,
but has oversize pins installed. The instrument holds a tune nicely, but the
bass is getting a bit dull, and there is of course unevenness of tone that
makes some areas of the treble less "sparkly" as well as some harshness on
certain notes (maybe 5 or 6) when played fortissimo.  I think new hammers
are the way to go, and have heard great things about Renner Blues being the
closest thing to pre WWII Steinway hammers. (I also heard Steinway hammers
are not "good" these days and should be avoided).   

Reshaping & Regulating was quoted at about 2K, this seems like a lot however
I realize the process is (when done correctly) time consuming.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brekne [mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:41 AM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: Reshaping VS new hammers


Hmmm... well its your piano... and if you want to invest in new hammers, and
the old hammers are badly worn, then I have difficulty understanding why a
tech (RPT or otherwise) would recommend reshaping. Ok, this is always a
judgement in cases where the hammers are in good enough shape...or even
borderline....but on the other hand new hammers present all kinds of
opportunities to improve play and tone... and they should last longer then
any reshaping job.

Reduction in felt by reshaping can cause a noticble lightening of touch...
its approximately a 5 to 1 ratio. Lessening of friction can also feel
lighter
and quicker. Tho I am no fan of using graphite in action parts... and would
go so far as to advise (warn) against it...certainly if we are talking about
action centers. In any case there are better (to my mind) lubricants
available ... ie teflon powder, McLube, WinSlip, Protek  to name a few.

One thing some, if not many,  techs overlook when installing new hammers is
the effect (read opportunity to manipulate) on touch weight. This is
changing
me thinks... thanks to the likes of Stanwood, Graviogne (sp?) and others who
are doing a lot to educate about action dynamics.

I am curious as to the general condition of your vintage Steinway
otherwise... soundboard / bridge condition, pin block, and the like. Would
enjoy to hear more about it if you can share that with us.


Bob Luderer wrote:

> I am considering replacing or reshaping the hammers in my 1926 Steinway
> model M.  Hammers are Steinway, were last replaced in 1966.  Voicing no
> longer is able to resolve the tonal variation, they are just too worn for
> that.  However my tech (not an RPT) thinks that reshaping will get a few
> more years out of them and bring the tone back to what it should be.  I
> would be interested in your thoughts on this......I wonder how this will
> affect the "feel" of the instrument, there was talk of lubing the action
> with graphite as well........
>
> Bob Luderer
> Acctg & IS Manager

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no