Cruising the net, I see some piano dealers offering 100 year old Steinways with original sound boards and describing these sound boards as in "perfect" condition. Can a 100 year old sound board still function properly? What do you think?

Functioning properly is a matter of degree. A SB that age will likely not have the crown and sustaining properties of a new or newer board. Is still produces a tone and has some degree of sustain.

I've heard that pianos that spent their life in a desert climate tend to have better soundboards when they reach old age than ones that lived in a humid climate.

Absolutely. Soundboards last indefinitely if the conditions are good.

There was a recent, long, and involved thread on this question. If you have time to read it, it could be interesting to you. If not, the relatively short answer is that yes, they can last indefinitely if conditions are good. That's pretty rare though. If the pianos sound good it's a good sign, since dead boards completely ruin the sound.

There seems to be some diversity of opinion on this. Is the sustain a way to judge the fuctionality of a sound board?

One telling way is to strum the undamped notes in the treble with a guitar plectrum...just don't drop it under the strings! These notes should ring out clearly if the soundboard is good.

I'm no expert, but I'd say yes except sustain is also a matter of degree, just like "functioning properly" does. Also, I think you'd have to test the sustain by plucking the string. I'd guess there are also other reasons for poor sustain besides a SB in bad shape.

The soundboard cannot be judged independently of the strings unless the strings are as new as they would be in a new piano.

The two biggest factors in the sound of a piano are the strings and the hammers. When people compare the sound of an old piano with that of a new piano, usually they are comparing old strings and hammers to new strings and hammers. Age of those components has a big affect on sustain. Our 1920 Steinway, with the original soundboard that spent its first 75 years near Philadelphia and a crack in it, has at least as much sustain as a new piano. This is not unusual.

It also will depend on the design.
Here on the West Coast I see many good looking and functioning old boards.
Something you don't see much in the East or parts of the prairies.

That being said I see perfect looking boards from some makers that have lost their crown have NO bearing and are dead.

I have also seen some boards with 5 cracks, look terrible that are full of life have crown and bearing.

Just in the process of explaining to one client why their perfect looking soundboard needs to be changed.

Talking to another client why I think they should change a soundboard in a powerful but heavily cracked and previously repaired piano. (Not by me)

While at the same time I have a few others in the shop with 100 year old boards that I am retaining because all checks out.

I think the conclusion is that if the 'dealers' you're looking at are responsible sellers, the pianos are probably good. However, any good dealer will allow you to hire an independent technician to check out the pianos, just to be sure.

I don't know about it from the side of the guy who did the work, so I don't know why he decided to keep the board, but our 1927 Steinway M was totally rebuilt around the old board (including new action behind old keys, new strings and pin block, and a total refinish), and it sounds great, according to the people who've been playing it in our concerts, and is, supposedly, unusually nice for an M. The board had at least one crack that was repaired. Surely that doesn't speak for every piano, but it does show that 80 years of age doesn't inevitably equal dead.

Personally, I would be hard-pressed to spend thousands of dollars on a restoration and not replace the soundboard, especially on a large piano. If it came down to money, I'd opt to not refinish the piano and use that money to replace the board.

There are some pianos I have come across which are dead, but the soundboard is perfectly fine. It is the other parts of the piano that killed the sound.

Nothing kills a piano's sound like inept workmanship, and you are more likely to get that if you replace the soundboard than if you leave it alone.

Not everyone who replaces boards is a hack. I am curious BDB as to whether you've EVER seen a bad soundboard? IS it just that you've never seen a good replacement job that you are so negative on the subject or do you just believe anyone who recommends the job is a crook?

I've followed your opinions on the matter for some time and wonder how you can paint the subject with such a broad brush and why you feel so inclined. Just curious!! Not looking to change your outlook on life as in all other areas of piano work we are pretty much in agreement and I usually find your advice spot on.

Yes, I have seen a soundboard that I could definitely say was bad. I just have not seen many. I have seen a soundboard that looked bad, but was not the cause of the problem that the owner, a Steinway artist, was complaining about. I understand the piano was rebuilt since then, undoubtedly with a new soundboard, which was justifiable for the visual esthetics, but not for the sound.

The replacements I have seen have been okay, nothing spectacular. Certainly not better than old soundboards which are in good shape.

I have been reading Del's posts, and have come to different conclusions from his. My conclusions are that most of the criteria that are used for deciding whether soundboards should be replace are specious at best. These include that soundboards are under high pressure, which they are not. (Del agrees with me on that.) That soundboards suffer compression failure, a conclusion which requires one to believe that compression causes degradation of sound, a dubious proposition. That whether the crown is measurable or not has some bearing on the sound.

Every soundboard needlessly replaced is another piano that cannot be built. Every piano that becomes too expensive to rebuild is another piano that sounds lousy needlessly. Those are reasons enough to question replacing soundboards willy-nilly.

Having facilitated near 100+ new soundboards,bridges and ribs on mostly Steinway and a few Masons,I feel if the bellyman has a grasp on this conceptual procedure,it can definitely benefit the piano for the better.Though I have played pianos whereas the rebuild would probably have benefited from salvaging the original soundboard.

Years back at the transition of changing soundboards on a regular basis,I actually redid the top end of a Steinway AII and a C with that of a new soundboard,bridges and ribs etc. a month after finishing the original rebuild (saving the original board first time around). Definitely a difference as for power,sustain and dynamic response.

In reality the question is whether the piano would justify from that new soundboard taking the cost $ expenditure into consideration. Even if one rebuilt a piano whose soundboard was flat as a pancake,minimal bearing,and maybe even negative,there will still be sound. Maybe it is not justifiable to change the soundboard at present but maybe next time around.

In reality and in marketing there is always a factor of esthetics whereas,who will buy a piano with 15-20 cracks and 30 dowels from a previous rebuild or ? Another issue altogether. But in marketing a piano to that discriminating artist, changing the soundboard may not equate to the dollar expenditure but it does equate if it betters the sound and one buys it reasoning be of it being exceptional. It is the same effort and sometimes the same $ to put a NEW soundboard in a Steinway D as an S. It is a case by case basis and I do 60/40 as for new.

I am trying to understand that last paragraph, and having no success.

I think Pianoborker is trying to say that to the regular consumer, the cost of replacing a soundboard may not be justifable, but to a performing artist, who is critical of the piano played, the value goes beyond the cash outlay.

Something like that anyway.

Marketing a piano to that nondiscriminating artist,changing the soundboard may not be a justified $ expenditure in that the original may be acceptable. But it is justified if it betters the sound beyond one's expectations of that discriminate artist resulting in that exceptional instrument.It is usually gonna be the bigger pianos B or D.

It is the same effort for the bellyman and sometimes the same $ to put a NEW soundboard in a Steinway D as an S. If the sound does not get appreciably better with the new soundboard, to me it did not justify the expenditure of a new soundboard.

The soundboard panel of a Steinway D cost wise is near the same $ as an S panel. A new soundboard cost is mostly labor.

What are you trying to say here: "If the sound does not get appreciably better in the S than to me,it does not justify the expenditure of a new soundboard."?

Perhaps you should try reading what you have written aloud to yourself before pressing the Submit button.

LOL -- BDB that is exactly what YOU should do is read it aloud!

He clearly has misspelled 'then' and confused it with 'than'.

It is not clear, and it still does not make sense.

Hmmm... how about, "If it's just a dustcatcher, don't bother with the soundboard. If the customer is going to actually play it, six times out of ten I'll give them a new one."

I read a lot of books where the syntax is no better--- and still drag some sense out of them. Come to think of it, when I write, I could usually throw out six out of ten words and still get there.

Steinway uses compression-crowned boards. That technique places large compressive stresses on the board in the across-the-grain direction. Over the long term, the stress will often (most often?) cause the wood fibers to crush, and in so doing, the soundboard will lose crown and stiffness, which will change the sound of the piano. Some may claim that loss of crown and stiffness are inconsequential to the piano's sound, but if so, one wonders why Steinway goes through the bother of making their boards in the way they do. Surely no one would argue that soundboard stiffness isn't a critical parameter of a soundboard's design.

Hypothetical:You got a soundboard in a Steinway S that has minimal crown,minimal bearing left which could benefit from a new board.
The new soundboard will cost 10K. Is it worth the extra 10K outlay on top of the normal restoration cost in this scenario ?
In that the soundboard on that Steinway D will also cost 10K, most could justify the additional $ outlay in that concert level instrument. I deal in the real world.Thats the way it is!

However, neither scenario addresses whether a new soundboard is necessary or not in either case.

My very first post ever here at PW back in 2005 dealt with this very subject. http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...html#Post646571

As many of the long time readers here know, I now have a beautiful sounding piano, and I did NOT replace the original 1925 soundboard. BDB, your advice at that time was correct. Del Fandrich also told me that if the piano sounds good now, 80yrs+, chances are the original soundboard is not going to fail in the near future. There were also people in that original post saying I should replace the soundboard. I am glad I did not listen to them.

I think the bottom line is if the piano sounds good now, it may not need a new soundboard, all other things being equal, hammers, strings etc. In my case, I had new action, strings and hammers, and the piano sounded pretty good. The soundboard was certainly not 'dead'. However, my recent 2 changes, Isaac hammers and the Wapin bridge mod, have brought out the tone even more, so that now the piano sounds even better, with it's original soundboard.

One thing we must remember when referring to a 100 year or so old piano: back then central heating was not too developed, and the conditions must have been very hard on pianos, even in finer homes. I bet a lot of the damage we see to soundboards happened a long time ago, when owners were less informed and less capable of maintaining an ideal climate for the piano. Families may have owned a piano for generations not even realizing that the soundboard was cracked or distorted. Only when the piano went for resale did the buyer of the piano make issue of the soundboard.

Today, with air conditioning and humidifcation in our homes, few pianos should suffer the damage that we see with old soundboards. So, if a piano made it this far with an oriiganl soundboard, it probaly will last indefinitely, provided it is kept in the proper environment.

Anyone agree?

My aunt and uncle had their 1901 Steinway grand rebuilt in 2001. (I think the piano is a 5'10" one, I forget the letter designation.) They shipped their piano to the rebuilder, who, after studying and dismantling the rest of the piano, concluded that the soundboard was perfect, had kept its crown and did not need to be replaced. The rebuilder reached this conclusion after being told that my aunt and uncle wanted to do everything to make the piano perfect, and that money was no object.

My uncle, a musician all his life, is now enjoying a second career as a concert pianist, playing on his beautifully rebuilt Steinway some 4-5 hours per day.

So my answer to the question that started this thread is that a 100 year old soundboard can still be perfect.