brash failure

[A440A at aol.com]

Ron  writes:

<< Yes, of course, we've all seen this stuff. You suggested 

breaking a (presumably typical?) 100 year old hammer shank, 

however, and finding brash failure. I don't know any reason 

the wood of the soundboard and bridges would be in any better 

condition than that of the shanks, do you? >>

Greetings, 
      I must be missing something here.  We seem to be comparing maple to 
spruce??  And comparing wood that is used for completely different functions.  
Spruce used in acoustical transmission doesn't lose anything by its age-induced 
brittleness, witness the outstanding tonal qualities of 300 year old violin 
tops, (Edgar Meyer, one of my customers, has an 18th century bass that is 
regarded as one of the best in the world, and it has played alongside more than one 
Strad!). 
    The elasticity of a hammer shank could easily deteriorate to a point 
where a new one would be better, but a very light, dry, brittle soundboard can be 
more responsive than a new, heavier one.  And even that doesn't completely 
address the comparison between the premium wood of say, 1920, with what is being 
put in pianos today, i.e., How is it that my 1920 Steinway M has virtually no 
false-beating strings, no cracks behind the bridge pins, etc.  and this 2001 D 
has at least 7 un-tunable unisons due to poor pin termination.  
    I believe that a very fine soundboard could be made with old spruce 
reattached to new ribs. 
 
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html