Lacquer fight! Lacquer fight!

[David Love]

I agree with this and have found that the best way to apply lacquer (on a
NY Steinway style hammer) is from the sides so that you can put it directly
right under the strike point.  Not only does it require less lacquer
overall as you don't have to apply enough to have it leach its way under
the strikepoint, but this leaves the shoulder of the hammer more flexible
and produces, in my opinion, the best type of tone for this type of hammer.
Since the hammer is already naturally more dense near the moulding than
near the strike point, the gradation of density from top to bottom is
maintained and seems to be important for a broad tonal pallete.  I also
agree with Willis that the hammer, at least this type of hammer, should be
played in, or allowed to develop naturally as much as possible before
applying hardeners.  I do have some customers who prefer a softer/darker
type of sound that the NY Steinway hammer gives, that also have a fear of
the type of tone that lacquer will produce.  In one such case, while I did
put a very weak 5:1 solution on the upper range of the instrument (Model
D), after 50 - 100 hours of playing (in her case, about one month), the
hammers developed very nicely and at this point--two or three years
later--the piano has plenty of "power", a beautiful round tone and broad
tonal palette.  The voicing I do consists mainly of maintaining the shape
of the hammer and light crown needling.  While the Steinway hammers of a
few years ago were such puffballs that they would never have developed, the
ones I am seeing today have a much better consistency.  It is unfortunate
that many players have come to expect instant tone with the piano and don't
have the patience to allow things to develop more naturally.  Those type of
hammers, to my ear, produce the most satisfying tone. 

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


>Ric B wrote:

> Another thing that would have to be difficult for the lacquer voicer to 
> imitate is getting the lacquer to truly build up most at the bottom, 
> then less and less concentrations the farther out you go towards the 
> surface.  If you dont mangage this... then this would right off seem to 
> explain part of the differences in sound created from the two approaches 
> I would think.  
> sound rather interesting. !