<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; cha= rset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f">The ability of the hammer fibers to move longitudinally is in my mind the= essence of good powerful piano tone.  In my work I HAVE to lacquer bec= ause on a softer hammer with a limited amount of springyness there is no oth= er way to increase volume.  I lacquer frequently but wouldn't if the ha= mmer had the movement to push the string into motion and get off quickly rat= her that to push the string out of its place of rest just at the striking po= int giving me what I call a Wheeeoo sound that is short on the fundamental a= nd rapidly goes into a deviant harmonic splash.  I don't know any other= way to express it.  The older Steinway hammers were softer and almost = silky to the touch.  I've always thought that it was more lanolin that = remained in the hammer fiber, giving it a resilience.  When you file th= ose older hammers you have all sorts of trash and black spots that are trapp= ed inside.  I have always assumed that they didn't "clean the wool very= well" leaving more lubricant inside which also actually made it sound bette= r.  This is just my thought on this. I also feel that the lacquer sound= has been accepted by most pianists in this country. I have over the ye= ars used about every other hammer in rebuilding as well as S&S to try to= get what I heard years ago in the Steinway hammers that were still around f= rom the pre 20's. Sometimes I have gotten close.  I try to ne= edle, iron and file to get the best out of an intrinsically soft hammer but = bright is what sells. Topperpiano (TP)</BODY></HTML>