Is there anything about the design of Steinways from different eras that would result in a different tone or touch on a rebuilt piano(assuming the highest quality rebuild)?

For example, if the same high quality rebuilder rebuilt a B from 1890 and a B from 1930 would one expect them to sound or feel different(apart from the usual differences one might get on any rebuild)?

PL,

The example that you use could conceivably yield very similar pianos, PL. However, this does not mean that you can do the exact same work to each piano. You see, there are differences in the plate design between the two pianos. Also, if we are talking about a mid 1930's or later B there would be action differences as well.

Now let's refer to a 1912 M, a 1916 M, and a 1920 M. These three instruments are different and distinct designs and the pianos are actually different sizes. This means that one could not do the exact same work with the exact same dimension parts, bridge placement, etc. and expect them to be successful projects.

However, it is also important to add that these three instruments (all Steinway Ms made in the same decade) could have a very similar final performance and many changes that happened over time were ways to tweak a scale, improve a product, or make it cheaper, quicker, or more appealing to the clientele.

It does not mean that it would be simple for any musician to play these three different versions of a model M and be able to tell us which is which based on differences in the sound or feel.

What is does mean - is that one could not use a soundboard assembly from the production of a new Steinway M and expect it to work well with all the other design components of the historic models without modifying the piano or the assembly, and this modification could result in a different final performance than what was originally intended by the designers.

I hope that is clear. (Frankly, I am not sure it is)

This is a very interesting question. The short answer is that yes there will be design differences with one model from different eras. Especially between the two eras you used as an example. Steinways are constantly evolving and for example the Diaphragmatic soundboard was patented in 1936 and is quite a significant design change. The hexagrip wrest plank (pinblock) was patented in 1963. These are two examples of significant design differences that would represent a difference within the same model in different eras. An interesting note is that when we take in pianos at the Factory Restoration center, we update the piano with the newest designed parts adapted to the specific piano. It's a very intricate process with fitting of the soundboard, for example, involving a million dollar machine that perfectly matches the soundboard to the rim. Walking through the factory floor it's quite amazing to see the pianos over 100 years old when they are taken apart so that you can see the evolution of the pianos from then to now.

Extremely clear, as always.

Dear Mr. Bernhard,

Thank you for becoming a part of this conversation.

Let me start by saying that I respect the new Steinway. However I happen to adore the older Steinway pianos and when we do a complete restoration we choose to remain faithful to the original intended design.

In my humble opinion, a change is not always an improvement and grinding down parts of the cast iron plate to accomodate an "improvement" is not always best for the piano.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

All the best,

I share Rich's sentiments and have reservations about the above statement from A. Bernard, especially when it comes to rebuilding and preserving older instruments with a heritage/historical value.

What will happen to this venerable piano - will it become a Frankensteinway? (sorry, Hallowe'en is still fresh on my mind)
McCartney pledges to restore Motown piano

Hi Rich. I used to live near you in West Chester PA. I went to some great concerts at the Kimmel Center. In fact I just watched Lang Lang's live cast of his Liszt concert on the big screen. Played on a couple of our brand new New York D's.

Regarding the sound of older Steinways versus new, everyone of course has their own opinion on this. I have owned Steinways from different eras and certainly notice a difference. This has to do with different manufacturing techniques and materials. As a pianist I personally love the sound and touch of the newest New York Model D's. At the same time I have an all original 1941 Model M sitting in front of me with a very unique sound that I also love.

I'm not really sure what you are referring to in speaking of grinding down the plate with newer parts? When you speak about remaining faithful to the original design I would be curious to your opinion as a rebuilder as to what that entails in terms of manufacturing methods and materials. I have personal interest in the subject since i am an engineer by training.

I find this discussion very interesting and agree that it would be insightful to understand more about how in 2011 one can recreate a design from the early 20th century, or before. Not throwing down a gauntlet here - just very interested in hearing how one remains faithful to the original (e.g. 100 or 80 year old) design.

Doug

You don't know what I am referring to?

With all due respect I have to ask what you do for Steinway. Do you work for the manufacturer? Have you spent any time in the factory? Did I assume incorrectly that you work for them?

Frankly, this is not a question I would expect from someone representing the company.

While I am happy to help anyone learn, it would probably prevent a lot of confusion if you removed the Steinway tag from your signature or at least put more details as to your position and experience.

Rich, I believe A Bernhard works in S&S sales in Florida. If this is correct, perhaps one cannot expect full knowledge of all rebuilding details that happen in the NY factory. And yes, a bit more disclosure could be helpful...

Having facilitated over 300 remanufactures as for Steinway grands alone,I know enough to be more than dangerous. I constantly pick the brains of my exclusive rebuilder, bellyman, refinisher down to my final prep tech /tuner.
I constantly drive them all nutz.

I think there is a major difference procedurally in manufacturing a NEW Steinway vs. restoring a vintage Steinway grand. I think in restoration one approaches the bellywork for each and every grand individually though each particular mdl. share the similarity in scale. There is a set relationship with the bridge placement,pinblock and the plate. The bellyman initially will always make a template for each and every piano. The cases /rims do vary from one of the same mdl. piano to another. As for grinding the harp, one usually does that when one's intent is to lower the harp to compensate for that flat,no downbearing tired ORIGINAL soundboard. When the bellyman makes a NEW soundboard, there is no need to lower the harp in that one is planing and notching the NEW bridgecaps on that NEW soundboard for the appropriate bridge height and downbearing.

Of course there is an expertise with that seasoned bellyman who has acquired the tricks of the trade but if you are copying the original soundboard you are doing exactly that. Does one normally renotch the inner rim for rib placement. Not unless one is straying away from it's original rib scale. Does one add a cutoff bar in copying an existing board ? I really don't see the BIG DEAL in copying the original. The original artisans of the turn of the century were not exactlly so steadfast consistent in their precise workmanship.

One thing I have realized over the years is, if one is a substandard rebuilder at year 1 one is still substandard 30 years later. The true artisans were artisans in their trade in the beginning. In my opinion, you either have it or you don't as in a true craftsman

Hi Pianobroker,

As always, when you speak (or write) anything on PW, I listen. You said something in the quote above that caught my attention and stirred my curiosity.

I always thought that “down bearing” was a result of the contact/pressure the strings placed on the bridge due to the position of the bridge and sound board in relation to the harp, which is measured with a down bearing gauge. I’m trying to figure out how the “notching” of the edges of the bridge cap plays a role in down bearing?

For example, the proprietary “accujust” hitch pins on a Baldwin grand allow for easy adjustment of down bearing by adjusting the position of the string on the hitch pin.

Could you enlighten me on this a little?

Thanks.

Rick

Rich, I am also curious to hear your answer to A_Bernhard's question.

PB,

The answers that your partners have given you are correct. Unfortunately, you asked the wrong questions.

What we are discussing is the corporate decision that Steinway made to rebuild a Steinway to new specs. This means that now when they are rebuilding a vintage Steinway they will do it in production, not in a dedicated restoration facility. Further, they will literally take a soundboard made for a new Steinway and make it fit into a vintage instrument.

This means that new notches in the original rim are necessary and sometimes grinding the original plate is necessary to allow the new bridge placement to work. This also means that the relationship between the bridge and the back end of the string will change.

I understand the decision to do this, as Steinway's corporate position is that a new Steinway is always the best Steinway, therefore new specs. must make an older piano better.

I respectfully disagree. Bridge, ribbing, and board changes are best made in tandem with overall design changes in the rim and the plate. The plate must be designed to accept those changes if you are looking for the finest final product. If you are looking for something that will kind of work and will remain consistent with your corporate message, then what NY is doing is just fine.

To Mr. Bernhard, I apologize for my harsh words to you. I thought at first that you were a "sock puppet", but if you are a salesman for a dealership, there is no way that you could respond to what I was saying. Again, my apologies!

Sorry Larry - we cross posted. See above - and thank you for joining the discussion.

Okay, PB, in my impatience, I did a little research on the purpose of “bridge notching”. It seems that “bridge notching” has more to do with the string termination points than down bearing. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

Rick

***Special Advisory***
Threadwatch is reporting a lockdown warning in your area.
***/advisory***

Rick, I saw that PB mentioned bridge notching too, but it was clear from the context that he means establishing the bridge height (to achieve correct bearing) and then notching.

Thanks, Jurgen. I was certainly not questioning PB, I was just curious. There is no doubt that piano rebuilding is not an easy task... It is a subject that interests me, though.

Heck, I've learned a lot from you pros here, and I appreciate your expertise!!

Besides, I like to hear PB talk about his “bellyman”…

Rick

I am a representative for Steinway & Sons in retail and institutional sales in FL, Caribbean, and Lat Am. In regards to different rebuilding methods, our factory restoration center uses either the original or vastly improved tooling that nobody else has access to. If anyone would have the best opportunity to be true to the original design of the piano, we believe it would be the Steinway factory. Any parts that would be upgraded are for parts that are physically superior and in our opinion acoustically superior (such as the Diaphragmatic soundboard). Given the fact that the vast majority of pianists on stage play new and not rebuilt Steinways, this is an opinion that is shared by most of the world's top pianists. Much of my training has to do with the design and manufacture of the piano therefore I am always interested to learn more. Rich I would still like to have an idea of what your idea of remaining true to the original design actually entails regarding rebuilds.

Either Steinway is or is not true to original design. A factory's "opportunity to be true to the original design" isn't relevant if they don't avail themselves of it.

[Edit - PL, you posted just before I did] In most people's books, installing a modern day action and soundboard in an 1870s piano would hardly seem "being true to the original design". To the contrary, it sounds more like a missed opportunity.

It all depends on what your definition of being true to the original design is. If you are suggesting that placing outdated parts into a piano just for the sake of "staying true to the design" then this is your opinion. I'm pretty sure that if you gave the customer who is rebuilding the piano a choice between older parts that will neither last as long nor sound as good as newer parts, their choice would be to go with improved updated parts. Imagine that we are talking about a historic building here. Obviously the renovation of a historic building is kept as close to the original intent as possible but if there are structural components that contribute to the strength and integrity of the building, you can be sure that these structural components will be either updated or completely replaced. Such is the case with a Steinway. Supply, you state that in most people's books updating parts with newer parts is a missed opportunity but what exactly is the alternative you are suggesting? Do you know what the differences are between the action and soundboard in a 1870s piano and a modern Steinway?

In my 30 years of involvement in rebuilding pianos, I can safely say that I have had many in depth encounters with many old and vintage pianos.

I am not sure there can be too many different definitions of being true to the original design. If I had a vintage Rolls Royce (or maybe some other less prestigious brand, but let's compare apples to apples here) which I wanted to have rebuilt, and someone stuck a 2011 Rolls Royce engine into it, would that be true to the original design? I think we can all agree: no.

It makes a difference of what the purpose or desired
intent of the RESTORATION. If it is to be a functional present day high level performance instrument, one has to make compromises from it's original build in restoration especially in it's action design and ?. But if you make compromises swaying from it's original build than I assure you that the vintage collector will not consider it period. Noboby not even Steinway manufactures the parts of those ancient no capstan "sticker actions". Actually a piano that old should be preserved either in it's "all original" condition or restored to it's original spec as a functional antique in it's original Rococco case. No serious concert venue is gonna utilize a restored antique concert size instrument.

Actually I have played ancient Steinways that were retrofitted with new MODERN action Kluge keysets /stacks etc. They all play very strange.

On another note, in production as in NEW Steinway pianos, they are still gonna be addressed as in "hand made" procedurely especially in assembly like any high end piano.

Ex.If you notice in all Steinway grands there is always a variable gap between the stretcher bar and the front edge of the harp. That is designated by the plate flange and the pinblock variable. So toward the end in production in retrofitting the new action stack they strive for the ultimate strike point etc. So therefore the stack position on the keyset will vary inadvertantly controlling the capstan position which sets the overall touchweight.At that point they may have to add or ? keyleads to achieve an acceptable touchweight.
Sorry for the digression but I find this very interesting and thought I would share it.
Actually I would like to know if this makes sense to other rebuilders .

So in conclusion....I'm debating on telling Paul McCartney and my friend Rusty A. that the Motown 1870's Steinway may not be built to it's original spec.

Here are my thoughts Alejandro,

I see you chose the vintage of the instrument carefully. As you might know an 1870's piano made by Steinway will be a very different design from today's instrument. The rim construction, action set up and design, and in many cases the number of keys will be different. This is true right up until the first continuous rim piano was made by Steinway in 1876.

The continuous rim was a cheaper way to go than a three piece solid timbre rim, this is a given. It also yielded a bigger, though a little less colorful tone, but at the time this helped to separate Steinway from many others in the industry. This was not something that the Steinway family themselves felt at all sure about though. We can come back to that thought another time.

As far as design is concerned, we can speak to this from two different angles, one being touch and the other being tone.

Let's start with touch. An 1870's Steinway would have what is sometimes referred to as a "rocker action". It is incredibly expensive to rebuild these actions to their original specs., but it is done. The result, if you've never played one, can be wonderful. If it is not done well, it will be an awkward thing to play.

However it is different from a modern action. It is a bit lighter and does not repeat quite as quickly as a modern action can. It is certainly easier to update these actions to a more modern design. While it takes an understanding of action design, balance, and how the right action ratio is accomplished, this is much easier than rebuilding the original action, IMHO.

Occasionally we DO rebuild the original action with tremendous results. For instance we just rebuilt an 1870 Knabe concert grand piano for a client. They appreciated the period touch and tone and they payed us to do the rebuild to the original action design. Although I do not yet have a video of this piano in performance, here is a picture of the finished product:


Click for a larger image

It is important to note that some of the great romantic composers wrote incredible music on actions that were not the "modern design", including Rachmaninov, Liszt, Chopin, and virtually all of the great romantic composers of the 19th century.

Now let's move on to tone. This is where I see little to no benefit in changing a piano's scale and soundboard assembly - particularly when we are discussing a piano of important historic significance or that already possesses a fine design. Everything in a piano is engineered, including bridge placement, rib placement, board thickness, frame design, and every other spec. of the assembly. There is no shortage of praise from world class artists on the 1920's and 1930's Steinway pianos. In fact, many musicians have considered this the "golden age" of the company's manufacturing.

There was a time in the not so distant past that Steinway would reproduce the belly. Today, they have no dedicated restoration center and they have a smaller staff due to layoffs. The result is that it is easier and cheaper to use a soundboard from production and make it fit into an older piano. As we already discussed, this requires making new cuts into thr rim of the piano to accomodate new rib placement. It also may require grinding down the plate to make the different bridge placement fit. Since the plate is also an engineered component, I feel uncomfortable with this option. It is also unnecessary.

With only a few changes, like using rib crowning as opposed to compression crowning, we will duplicate the original design of the soundboard. This is not to take away from the cool things that some are doing today like Ron Nossaman, Del Fandrich, and Dale Erwin. They do cool stuff that is neither the original design, nor is it a "modern design".

OK, I think that is enough for now.

My two cents,

There are a lot of differences in design of Steinway pianos from different eras, if you look at the same model. Steinway never had any intention to make cookie cutter pianos. Originally, grand pianos were considered an art and even when the Steinway was able to build one of the greatest piano production line, they still preserved craftsmanship and always pushed to make each piano unique in its design and character.


If a high quality piano rebuilder, by some reason would want to make two Steinway B pianos (from different era) the same, to pass the test in front of dealers, sales persons, teachers, musicians, technicians (who usually assess the rebuilt quality in the piano industry). It takes some effort, but its possible.

Good point Gene.

Mr. Bernhard, I look forward to futhering this discussion with you when you read my post above.

Well, with respect, Rich, changing from the long-problematic compression-crown system to a rib-crown system is a fairly major deviation from the original. You cannot really claim to be true to the original design of the piano with a change this significant. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing the change. Being one of the pioneers in identifying and writing about the problems associated with the compression-crown soundboard designs—I did, after all, coin the two terms “compression-crown” and “rib-crown”—I fully approve. Still, even though the ultimate performance and longevity of the piano is enhanced, it is a design change.

My views on making design changes during the rebuilding process are articulated in the article I wrote for the article, Three Approaches to Piano Restoration, appearing in the Fall, 2010 issue of Larry Fine’s PianoBuyer magazine. (See http://www.pianobuyer.com/fall10/72.html )

Allow me to give just one real life illustration: one of the pianos in my shop just now is a Model M from the early 1900s. It’s not getting a new soundboard—the piano has been in the NW throughout its life and it is pre-Diaphragmatic so the board is still in good condition—but some changes are being made anyway. The low- to mid-bass of this model has always been what can best be described as “muddy.” The reasons for this are now fairly well known as are the requisite fixes requiring only relatively easy-to-make changes to the design of the bass bridge and bass scaling. As well, the bass-to-tenor transition is a classic example of how not to do it; again, why not make the relatively simple scaling changes that will smooth it out and make it musically transparent?

Action geometry has always been a moving target at Steinway. As I see no benefit to replicating the mistakes of the past why shouldn’t we reposition the action stack as necessary, use wippens that have adjustable jacks, reposition the capstans so they actually seat squarely against the wippen capstan block and give an appropriate overall action ratio, etc.? While we’re at it why not replace the damper tray with one of modern design and, while we’re at it, install the capstans that should have been part of the design for at least a century or more? All of these are changes from the original but all of them improve the end performance of the instrument.

Given the performance improvements that are available with so little additional cost and effort, to my mind, at least, I would be remiss in my obligation to my client if I did not do these things even if in the end it is no longer absolutely authentic to the original design.

ddf

As always Del, you are correct.

However, the original dimensions of the assembly stay exactly the same in reference to how they fit and behave within the piano. This is not a move made to save time or resources and we feel it will benefit the piano in the long haul.

Thank you for your contributions, Del.