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.

Rich I believe Del and I share the same sentiments. I have played on an 1860s rebuilt Steinway Model A1 ( I believe it was an A1) and from what I felt the action seemed updated (although from what I remember there were less than 88 keys). In terms of building a replica which is what I think you are referring to, I'm sure this could be done if it was specifically requested of the restoration center. Looking at it from the perspective of someone who is restoring a piano so that it can be played in the home I would say that updating components with superior parts as Del spoke of just makes sense. I'm sure there is a very small percentage of those rebuilding pianos as close to original specs as possible and that of course has it's own merit but I feel this is a separate market than those wishing to rebuild a piano so that it is playable and durable. My personal thoughts.

This piano if it were an 85 note A1 would not be of the 1860's in that they were in production only from 1878-1893. The A1 with 88 keys were of 1892-1896. In 1896 Steinway started manufacturing the A2 which were very different in it's scale.

The A1 though it dated as far back as 1878, is still considered a "modern piano" in it's overall scale and modern erad action stack. It was overstrung with that triple bridge(hook bridge /shephard's crook) with 57 wound strings in the bass and tenor. The action is modern enough to change out with your coventional modern action parts whether Steinway or aftermarket. There are restoration firms that alter the overall string scale etc.in bettering the instrument somewhat but, in my opinion there is a limit to how much one can better the overall piano in it's performance level. You are not going to make it = to that of a A2 or A3. I have had many many many of each mdl.

I feel everybody including me is all over the place as for what is justified as for a legitimate stray from a pianos original design. Bottom line, it depends on the owner or restoree as for his overall intent or the purpose of the piano.

To make an extreme example. Would one want to update, change the string scale, redesign the action geometry in a late 1860's Steinway square grand? Is it legitimate to gut that Steinway XR Duoart player and replace it with a modern IPAD controlled digital player system ?. Do you think there is a reason that a buyer for a rebuilt Aeolian Duoart Steinway grand would want the player restored in it's originality ?. Again the intent and purpose controls which way to go as for restoration.

Right, but my understanding is that Del significantly redesigns the instruments by rescaling, bridge changes, and even soundboard modifications to attenuate what are perceived to be flaws in the original design. That isn't what happens in a current Steinway factory rebuild, right? New-design actions are adapted to the old instruments, and the modern tapered Sitka board is also installed, regardless of whether the instrument had a tapered board or even used Sitka spruce when it came from the factory.

Out of curiosity, does the Hamburg factory do restorations too? Do they happen on the same production line as the new instruments, or are they separated?

As the end-user, I don't tend to get as hung up on the minutia of how it's done-- it just matters how the piano plays and sounds when it's done.

I need to say that most of what Del does would NOT be done at Steinway, A.



A, Steinway has closed their restoration center. It does not exist, so their options are limited. Restoration is done as a part of production.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not for one minute finding fault with the people that work the line at Steinway in Astoria. These men have dedicated themselves to making a beautiful instrument, but the circumstances that they have been put in to perform a restoration do not make it likely to achieve a great final product. It certainly does not allow them to do the kind of custom work that I was referring to.

My 2 cents,

Hi Rich and all
This is my first EVER post to this forum. Ta Da!
I hadn't realized the restoration center was closed.
I have followed this thread a bit and I always find it interesting that folks that work with the Steinway organization some how think that only the factory or the now closed restoration center can adequately rebuild the Steinway piano. I know its my first post but...Its kind of insulting. The inference seems that somehow there are no fine woodworkers/piano restorers in this country that can achieve an outcome such as the Factory/ restoration center. To me a myth at best
I have certainly seen many miserable attempts to restore Steinway pianos that were a miscarriage of creative justice and a waste of raw materials. On the other hand I have heard many Steinways rebuilt that enhance the very best qualities of the Steinway design and allow performance and enjoyment at higher levels of expression than one might expect from....the original design & intent. As I recall I heard one of Rich Galassinis A-3s this year. Good belly man. Nicely done.
For the piano restorer desiring to create a fine piece It is certainly a wonderful platform to work with, but certainly not the only one.

I was going to stay out of this and I think I still will but thought I would take a second and say hi to Dale.

Hey Dale,

Welcome aboard! And thank you for the kind words Dale. Coming from you they mean a lot.

Cheers!

Dear Piano World,
I have been reading this thread and have been holding back because I quite frankly don’t have the time to get into the back and forth of all of this and I didn’t want to jump in and then disappear; I am too busy restoring Steinways. I have also seen so many inaccuracies that it would take a very long time to address them all. One of the big problems with the Internet is that you can write anything you want – whether it has any basis in truth or not – and people who don’t know better will often believe you.
Just to introduce myself to the group, my name is Bill Youse. I am the third of four generations of Steinway employees. I spent 13 years on the bench doing many of the back end jobs here, from driving the delivery truck to regulating, tuning, dampers and finishing, as well as managing our Belly department for 2 years, in no specific order, so I have a good idea about what goes on in multiple departments at Steinway. I have spent 23 of the last 25 years as the designer and architect of our restoration business so I also know how that works.
I have seen where some have tried to make the argument that Steinway is not keeping true to the period in which a piano was originally built and that customers want a true period piano when they are restoring their instruments etc. Often within the same argument, or even the same paragraph, I’ve seen the same people go on to say that pre-crowned ribs are better and that non-Steinway action parts are better than what Steinway produces, even though these are examples of things that are not true to the period. Another common thing I hear/read is how the so called ex-Steinway employees at a particular place are better than the people at Steinway now. They often go on to say that Steinway no longer restores pianos as they used to, and on and on.
I can say with complete confidence that all of these things are not true. To start, and again in no particular order, when you put a self-designed soundboard in a Steinway you have gotten away from the original design. When you install non-Steinway action parts, you have gotten away from the original design. When you take Steinway specs and have someone who supposedly knows better than Steinway change them you have gotten away from the original design. And as an added comment, why do you think the people who you claim to be ex-Steinway employees that you use for your work are EX-Steinway employees?
As for the comment about restoring pianos through the line and not having a separate restoration center, yes, we no longer have a separate “center” where the work is done. But that was a cost containing issue of where it was most cost effective to do the work but not who performs the work. The same people who were doing the restoration work before the moves are still doing the work and it is still managed by the same people. They are simply doing the same work they have done for years – and in many cases decades – at a different spot within our factory here in Astoria, NY.
One other thing that seems to have been left out of the equation is what type of restoration you are performing, for whom, and for what purpose. Is it a Museum type restoration where everything must remain original to the piano itself? Is it for a customer who would like to have the piano look like a period piece but perform to the standards of a new piano? Is it for a customer who would like it to be as close to original as possible but who wants modern performance and longevity? Or is it a customer who wants a piano that is slightly less expensive than new but is as close as possible to it technically?
These are very different types of restorations that cannot be dictated by a restorer’s desires or ideals; at the end of the day, the customer is the one that ultimately needs to be satisfied.
As for the Motown piano, it is a Style II Steinway that has been modified many times over. Steinway will work with the museum to come up with a plan of action that works toward their desire to have the piano concert and recording ready and playable for Rock and Roll / Motown music while keeping it as true to original as possible. We will use currently employed Steinway trained and managed employees, use only Steinway parts, a true Steinway Soundboard and give them back a true Steinway in every sense of the word that works for their needs as a display piece that will perform when needed.
As a closing note, it is my opinion and that of Steinway & Sons that when someone outside of the Steinway factory, using non-Steinway parts, makes major modifications to our pianos, they should take the Steinway name off of the rebuilt piano and put their own name or company name on it. The piano has been changed so much that it is no longer truly a Steinway.

Dear Bill,

Thank you for getting involved in this discussion. Although we have never met we were both quoted in an article on this very subject in the Spring of 2010 PianoBuyer. I believe we are still in the same positions as we were then.

I will first say that I have the same respect for you that I have for Del Fandrich and others mentioned in this thread. You manage a dynasty and your company markets your work as "the world's finest without exception". Your stance is that outside of your hallowed halls exceptional work is impossible. I respectfully disagree.

That statement alone will make a discerning musician or artisan look very carefully at the process and the product. You have said a lot in your post and I would like to respond to a few things. Since this bothers me most, I will start with this point:



I have a few comments about your statements above Bill and I will only speak for myself.

First, let's agree on what we mean when we say "rebuild a piano to its original design". On all of our projects by far, this is what we do to the best of our ability. This means that we choose materials and parts that were meant by the original designer to make up the tonal and mechanical aspects of the particular piano in question.

For instance, we try to use the same phylum of wood that was originally used when we replace a soundboard. We will stay with the original belly design as we see it, excepting obvious manufacturing defects. We will use parts that we feel offer the best solution in size, weight, and dimension to remain faithful to the original design of the action. This often means ordering parts that are not produced in New York. Further it may mean modifying a part that is purchased from NY in the interest of piano's final performance.

Believe me, our lives would be easier if we could just pick up a catalog and order everything we need to do the best job we know how to do. I wish it was that simple, but you are not in this business and I totally understand that. Your goal is clear and stated in all of your ads.

To simplify my thoughts, if we are rebuilding a Steinway M from 1932 our goal is to make that piano as close as possible to what the piano was in tone and touch as when it was new in 1932. When we are rebuilding a 1901 Steinway A, our goal is to make that piano as close as possible in touch and tone to when it was new in 1901.

Lastly, although we may use rib crowning, the dimensions , species, and density of the parts remain the same, so I feel this is an improvement while remaining faithful to the original design. If you disagree, so be it.



In this day and in this industry we all know about cost savings. However, restoring a piano is a very different operation from building a new piano and it would be very difficult to do both in the same line at the same time. More than anything this just speaks to your company's public statement that a new Steinway is the best Steinway - period and your work reflects that corporate decision. I get that.



Now here we agree. Contract restorations are different than doing pianos for resale. Each time we do a restoration for a client we have a conversation with them about their options. If a customer would like a rosewood piano to be green polyester, we will do that for them. If they desire a modern action in their 1870's instrument, we will do it. Clearly from your post though, your facility's recommendations might be a little different than ours.



This statement cuts both ways Bill. You leave an open statement that could lead someone to believe that the only reason that someone would leave your factory is if they could not do the work. The fact is that many had to leave just to make a living. When Astoria was two weeks on and two weeks off for the entire factory there were very good people that just wanted to continue to feed their kids.

Does that change the work that their families have done at Astoria for generations? I do not see how it could.

My thoughts,

Whether you are the Steinway factory or an independent rebuilder,the goal in a PERFORMANCE priority restoration is to use the best parts available in the marketplace for the project at hand. Being restricted to just one manufacture, parts wise COULD stifle one's ability to achieve that goal. If one is not privy to the differences, dimension wise of the aftermarket parts available than one won't ever know if there is a superior part available for the project at hand. There is only a handful of rebuilders that know for ex. why one has to use longer let off buttons in the Renner USA Steinway parts etc.etc. Let's get real!, It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that Steinway in their marketing philosophy will assert that Steinway parts are the only option. Duh! Are Mapes bass strings which Steinway uses exclusively the best available bass wire in the open market today? Many rebuilders would most probably dispute that.

I find that the true performance priority pianists don't really initially care what parts one uses or the methodalogy of a restoration etc. If the piano does not cut the mustard in performance than who cares about anything else.
Inquiry as for parts utilized is an afterthought after the piano has met the scrutiny of the pianist. Prospective Steinway buyers that initially spec a Steinway restoration as for build and parts don't play. Not even a veteran rebuilder commissioned to assess whether a soundboard is rib crowned or compression crowned could tell or even care for that fact. The final results are what matters in the end abiding to the wants of the restoree and the quality of the work performed.

Exactly, Tony!

PB,

Very true! In the end we are all looking for a great piano, whether the name is Steinway, Mason & Hamlin, Bosendorfer, or any other great instrument.

By the way, since you are participating in this thread Terminal Degree, would it be appropriate to share some of your experiences visiting East Coast piano locations this past summer?

If not, I totally understand.

Thanks for the excellent post PB. I have been wanting to get involved in this discussion, but frankly after all of the empty posturing, transparent self promotion, defensiveness and even bullying that I have observed in this thread ( from some people who should know better ), I stayed out.

With that, I want to say that I agree with everything in PBs post with the following 2 exceptions.



We have had some of the very best pianists in the world spec Steinways from us, including Juilliard major piano faculty. This is quite common at PianoCraft even from serious pianists who say they would never do this.



A veteran rebuilder who felt strongly that rib crowning resulted in better longevity in a soundboard would probably prefer that the piano was rib crowned.

Other than those 2 points, excellent post PB!

I thought this deserved a +1, I guess +2 now.

That's not the way I read his post at all.

I do get his point that if a rebuilder makes changes in parts, such as soundboard or action, or changes in design, that piano is no longer a Steinway. If you put a Chevy 350 engine in a Ford Model T, it's no longer a Ford, right?

I can see where he might have attitude when a rebuilder, and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, might knock Steinway and their processes and parts selection in one place, and then trade on the Steinway brand when pointing to the Steinway and Sons decal on the fallboard to a customer.

great summary

To extend your metaphor, if a Ford V6 4.0 engine (in production today) were put into 1924 Model T, would it still be a 1924 Model T?

If a private mechanic rebuilt a 1924 Model T and chose third party components that were carefully built for use in restoring a 1924 Model T would it be any less a Model T? Would it be a more authentic 1924 Model T?

I guess you be the judge.

I admit this is not a perfect metaphor, but maybe this makes my original point a little more accessible. And again, PB hit the nail on the head - the most important thing is truly the final performance.

To me, no. It'd be an improvement, but you couldn't call it a '24.



It would have to be all original parts to be an authentic restoration to me.



That's a fact, Jack!

I completely agree with Bill. Any major modifications to an instrument will alter the authenticity of the original design intended by the manufacturer. Any major alterations to a piano could certainly make damage to the manufacturer, if promoted as a Steinway and anything that has been done to the piano out of Steinway’s specifications, should be disclosed to the potential buyer.

My opinion regarding the general quality of restoration based on 100’s of pianos that came to my facility from different eras, is that most are done with poor quality and can be classified as causing damage to the piano.



Steinway employee and ex-Steinway employee are both respectable terms in the industry, but unfortunately can be used by anybody. I know a dealer who told customers that he request Steinway factory technicians to fly from New York to Los Angeles to perform restorations on his pianos. From my point of view, this conduct is unethical and should not be tolerated. I can see how this can hurt Steinway & Sons image.

I understand Gary.

Here is the rub for me. In a Ford model T, or any classic car for that matter, you are dealing with parts that can be effectively reconditioned, reused, exchanged from other model T's, etc.

I cannot do that with a piano if I am looking for a premium performance. There is a time when worn leather knuckles cannot be massaged to be quiet anymore, soundboards have too many cracks and have little crown and/or bearing left, and action bushings have worn to make rebushing an impractical solution.

So if a car (or piano) cannot accept original parts and the manufacture does not support the product with new "original spec." parts - What is the alternative?

To a large degree this is where the competent piano rebuilder finds himself. This is not a problem because the well trained rebuilder makes it his business to know the design concepts and specs. of a piano in order to properly reproduce the instrument.

If all of this care is taken, the work is done in the same manner, using the closest materials to original available, and it is done by people who have actually built these pianos new, how could this not be considered an authentic restoration?

(This is a sincere question.)

A few years back we remanufactured a Steinway grand for a client who absolutely insisted on our using Genuine Steinway Parts. So we ordered shanks, wippens, etc., from Steinway. When the shipment came in we unpacked the Renner parts from Renner boxes having Steinway labels pasted over the Renner labels. My questions, I guess, are these: Was the piano a more genuine Steinway piano because of those labels? Would it have been any less a genuine Steinway had we ordered the parts directly from Renner and saved the client several hundreds of dollars?

ddf

It depends on when you order the Genuine Steinway Parts. In some eras, and some sizes, you got Renner in a Steinway box. Or like now. We're rebuilding an old Steinway upright for a client and we're using the same parts they'd use if the customer sent it to Steinway...Steinway hammers, but Japanese Tokiwa parts where necessary. Steinway stopped making replacements. I guess I could have Steinway put them in a box for me

We'll be starting on a 1970's Steinway D soon...anybody know where I can get some new Steinway Teflon parts

Steinway is dedicated to making sure their branding goes all the way at every opportunity, but you can see how this occasionally creates an obvious reason to question how that makes it better.

People forget that it is the pianos that make a brand good, not the other way around. The brand is just there so people can keep track of the money. For that reason, a brand is worth defending, but even good brands make good and bad decisions. I was reading an article today about the McPizza and the McAfrica from America's biggest export.

Actually, yes. I do still have quite a few new Teflon bushings, centerpins and quite a few new parts of various types. I also have the special single-flute reamers. I just came across them as I unpacked from our recent move. Anybody need any of these things?



Now there is an insightful comment….

ddf

That was more than a FEW years ago. ;-}

I think you'd be ok if you ordered the parts from Renner and bought labels from Steinway!!

No, it would be in the spirit of the original, though, and no doubt be an excellent instrument. But that's just my take, not the be all and end all.

OK. Rub it in, will you....

ddf

By the time you add up the cost of the labels it would probably come out to the same price....

ddf

I think the term “authentic” for rebuilds simply because some of the work is performed by former Steinway employees, whether layed off, fired, or merely disgruntled, with major parts that are deemed better than Steinway's simply because the rebuilder’s front man says so, is a far reach. Since this work is definitely not authorized by Steinway, a better term for a piano that all remains of the original piece is the rim and plate would be counterfeit.

I think the quality of these replica pianos is not found in their performance as much as in their price being much cheaper than Steinway's own restorations.

If rebuilders are so proud of their work, then simply putting their name on the fallboard would be the honest solution. That way, at least, they wouldn’t be accused of simply coat-tailing, a free ride on the success of folks who have spent a lot of time and money making the name Steinway what it is today . . .


Mike

So, let’s see…if I take a Ford to a qualified, but not genuine Ford, repair shop and have the blown engine and transmission replaced with components rebuilt by one of the many after-market venders doing this kind of work, the mechanic must then pull all of the Ford insignia off of the car and replace them with—what?—insignia bearing his own name?—insignia bearing the vender that rebuilt the engine?—one of each?—I’m getting confused. The bottom line being that I no longer have a Ford because Ford did not rebuild the engine and transmission and I’d be driving a counterfeit?

ddf

Del,

I'm not sure by what weird logic repairing a Ford passenger car compares with restoring a vintage piano, but the conceit, such as it is, sounds juvenile. You would be better off, rhetorically at least, comparing restored vintage automobiles with restored vintage pianos, and even that would require a surfeit of crude logic, because, as far as I know, Ford is not competing in the vintage car restoration business . . .


Mike

People with current and recent model vehicles do get in wrecks and need their cars repaired, not just old model T's. Ford's decision not to set up body shops at dealerships doesn't factor into their decision to supply everyone else with replacement parts.

However, which is more logical, to take a 1969 Mustang to have it "restored" with a mixture of original and new old stock parts or to have Ford chop and build up the old frame to convert it into a 2011 Mustang?

Rich,

If you have people working for you rebuilding Steinway pianos who "actually built these pianos new", then you have some very old former Steinway employees. Considering that you promote the "Golden Era" of Steinway pianos, I am guessing that your employees where building pianos for Steinway in a different era. (unless the Golden Era was more recent.....)

What kind of custom car is this?
I'd be more than proud to own it.
I had a 67 in 87.

BTW Chip made a few modifications.

Looks like a 1969 Chevrolet Camaro to me. Could be a '68, but I'm guessing it's a '69.

Charles

Compare the side marker lights, the trim in front of the rear wheel and the spoiler.

http://myclassicdreamcars.com/camaros/1969-camaro-ssrs/1969-camaro-ssrs-2/

Charles

Hi Gavin,

Welcome aboard.

Please forgive my terrible writing. I meant that I have employees that worked at Steinway in Astoria building new Steinway pianos - and that worked in the restoration center.

I did not mean that they were now at Cunningham rebuilding the actual pianos that they built as new instruments years ago at Steinway. That would be a great story though if it happened!

This reminds me of something my father said to me as a teenager. As he listened to me relay an event over dinner (as I used typical teenager slang) he waited until I was done speaking, turned to me and said dryly, "Richard, I love the way you have taken up English as a second language."

I love my Dad! I guess my language skills have not improved that much over the years.

Hey Rich,I would say that your language skills are just fine. In the context of your statement, anybody would assume that one working in the factory in the 20s would not be lifting Steinway D rims at present, though working at Steinway could be like working out at the gym.
Hmm...No AC in the those NY summers in the factory
I would say it is a known fact that the "golden years" is of the turn of the century,teens,20s to the pre war 30s. I don't think the CBS era was considered to any as the golden era.

You're right. The CBS years were more like "salvaging a dying company—and piano—from otherwise certain death.”

And your comment brings up a question—I’ve heard many folks talk about Steinway’s “golden years” and it has long puzzled me. What is it about the pianos built during those years that cause otherwise sane and logical people to go all gaga over them? Their design was certainly no better than that of today’s Steinways. Their materials were good but they are good today. Their workmanship was often crude by today’s standards. What is it that leads folks to this conclusion?

(Note: I’m comparing the pianos of one hundred years ago to today’s pianos, not those built from roughly the 1960s to the 1990s.)

ddf

Del,

When people go gaga over vintage Steinways, I think it is often just the romance of thinking about the Steinways of the past that were the instruments played by the great pianists. There are wonderful pianists now, but the world is a different place and there can no longer be pianists thought of the way a Horowitz or Rubinstein or Rachmaninoff were thought of, and they played on those vintage Steinways, not on current Steinways.

There are some pretty compelling aspects of the "golden era" Steinways. The first one that comes to mind is the A3, which I think is a better design than today's A2. I also love the NY Steinway Cs from that period which no longer exist ( and the Hamburg C is quite a different animal )
The soundboards had a lower impedance and the hammers were lighter in the "golden era" Steinways compared with today.
There are also several purely cosmetic areas in which the older Steinways were nicer including the extra detail on the cases and plates along with some really spectacular veneers that you don't see today.

Could you explain more what you mean by this?

The world doesn't value concert pianists the way it did. I am not saying that a current pianist couldn't play the piano as well or better than the legends of the past, I am saying that no matter how well someone plays now, they are much more culturally peripheral than those of the past and therefore will never be generally thought of with the same kind of adulation and even worship.

Just seeing if anyone would call it a Foose!!!

Very true.

Add to this that it seems a new, word record setting pianist is being introduced every Monday morning from some part of the world...

Norbert

Del, Having facilitated hundreds of Steinway grand restorations over the years,there is a pattern that develops post restoration comparing a full blown restoration of a vintage golden era core piano vrs ones of maybe the 60,70s and 80s in particular. The vintage era pianos result in a superior piano post restoration.
You have to take the recent manufacture Steinways out of this equation in that few are being remanufactured of the later 80s,90s up to the present. Actually the brand new NY Steinways of 2011 look very much like new Hamburg Steinways from underneath as for fit and finish.
I still believe there is a seasoning factor in the rim /case itself along with the casting of those beautiful decorative script cast harps. I have completely finished spec Steinways of both the vintage era and newer era Steinways. The pianos speak for themselves. Aside from the rim and the harp controversy,there is a major difference in the original keyset composition along with both the naturals and the sharps.
They were definitely NOT Kluge keysets in the later years and downright sub standard in their construction and compoisition..In a full restoration that new Kluge keyset is not always in the cards or the client's realistic budget.

The assembly /workmanship of the CBS era kind of reminds me of the Aeolian era of Knabe and Mason & Hamlin in those later years. If you remanufacture a later era Aeolian Mason, do you think it has the potential of a pre 1932 Mason & Hamlin core piano ? I don't think so.
With a full high level remanufacture of a newer Mason, a high level restoration firm could restore the piano superior to when it was new of the later Aeolian era.
I agree that CBS saved a dying company from sure death but at a high price at the time.

But this is an elusive dream. No one alive today really knows what those pianos sounded like when they were new. We can speculate about what they sounded like back then and we know what they sound like today after the ravages of 100 or so years have taken their toll. And, of course, we know what they sound like today when restored by a competent rebuilder. But I’d say that much of what these pianos sound like today has to do with the skill and knowledge of the rebuilder of today and less with the actual design and original build quality of the pianos. Any rebuilder who has done more than a few of these pianos knows well how poorly and inconsistently some of those old bridges and soundboards were made; how poorly some of those plates were cast and machined; how poorly they were installed and fitted to the rims; how haphazardly some of those actions were fit and aligned; and the list goes on. Today’s rebuilders cope with these things as a matter of course.



OK. But these are models—and I’d include the Model L which I prefer rebuilding to the Model O—that can’t be compared to anything Steinway is producing today. Well, the Model C is still available from Hamburg but not from NY.



The soundboards have lower impedance today but was it lower when they were new and still (presumably) had some significant amount of internal compression? Keeping in mind that all of the crown and a fair amount of system stiffness in these boards comes from the perpendicular-to-grain compression within the soundboard panel. To be sure, hammers were lighter and less dense but this, while it does have an effect on the tone performance of the piano , does not really speak to their construction and detailing.



These things are available if we’re willing to pay for them. They are costly now just like they were back then.

I only bring this up because I’m puzzled about why we generally regard the older instruments as being better crafted and having better materials than the pianos being built today and I don’t buy it. While I don’t particularly care for the tone performance of many of the modern pianos as they come from the factory it seems to me their build quality is at least as good if not better today than it was a century back.

Comments?

ddf

Core pianos are core pianos. The biggest problem with more recent core pianos is that the asking prices are unrealistic. They need the same amount of work—in some cases more—so it makes no sense to pay the prices most often being asked for them. But that is another issue. I’m just pondering results here, not economic feasibility. After all, the original question was about how to approach pianos from different eras. My expectations are basically the same regardless its year of manufacture. As you say, everything built with Pratt, Read keys needs a new keyset. But other than that things are going to look pretty much the same. Both are going to need new soundboards and bridges, new blocks, new actions, hammers, dampers, back-actions, etc. The newer pianos will need more cosmetic work to make them look decent. But I don’t agree that there is any particular performance benefit to be gotten from “aged” rims and plates.



The assembly/workmanship of the Steinway pianos had declined significantly before CBS purchased the company. It was during the CBS years and later that the build quality stabilized and began to improve. Even the Teflon bushing fiasco was an honest attempt to make better actions.

And, yes, I would expect the same level of performance from a remanufactured 1980s Aeolian M&H that I would expect from a pre-1932 instrument. Again, both would be getting very similar work; new boards, blocks, actions, etc. It would take a lot more cosmetic work to make the later instrument look good but aesthetics has little to do with performance. It will, of course, make a big difference if you’re trying to sell the piano at a profit.



If I understand your comment, yes, I agree. A good rebuilder can rebuild a dying-gasp Aeolian M&H to look and perform better than it did when it left the factory. The same will be true if the core is a Steinway. Or a Baldwin.

And this brings up a whole other question. Can our rebuilder take either a 1920s or a 1980s M&H and make it superior to a new M&H of today? Probably not. Workmanship and materials notwithstanding there have been design improvements in the new instruments that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to equal when starting with an older core; and it won’t matter if that core comes from your golden age or from M&H’s pot metal age. This is not the case with Steinway. The changes made to the design over the years are not significant enough to keep the modern rebuilder from equaling or surpassing the performance of the new piano. The fact that the build quality of the new piano is arguably better than it has ever been will not keep the rebuilder from at least matching the performance of the new piano.

ddf

Years ago, when I was more interested in wood finishing, I got a Fine Woodworking book. Adventures in Wood Finishing, by George Frank, who had been in the finishing business in Paris between the wars. One of his adventures was working with a cabinetmaker who had been commissioned to copy a Louis XIV chair borrowed from the Louvre, expenses not to be spared. Eventually the cabinetmaker asked Frank how he would copy the 300 year old finish on the chair. Frank replied that the finish was less than 10 years old. The cabinetmaker asked if Frank thought chair was a fake. He said no, but that every time someone polished, waxed or oiled, something was added to the original finish. So the original finish was then modified by 300 years of caretaking, carelessness, wear and accidents.

The same thing happens to the performance of a piano. The sound and touch is modified by wear, age, and by the maintenance work we techs do. This makes so much difference that Steinway often leaves the last finishing touches to the local technician, although as pianos wear and get serviced, the same thing will happen to other makes of piano as well, even those that have the highest standard of finish when they leave the factor. As each tech has his or her own particular set of skills and tastes, every one of us will do things a little different. I would not expect identical pianos that come out of Del's or pianobroker's or Keith Kerman's shop, nor one that I work on to be like that piano coming from the factory, nor would any of them sound or play exactly like any of the others. Put them all under the care of the same person, and eventually, they may converge somewhat. In the end, they all may be excellent pianos, as long as they are well cared for, even if they are all different. After all, when we compare pianos, there is no one absolute standard of excellence.