Are the younger Mason and Hamlin grand pianos a quality instrument like the 'golden age'-era models are?

At least in my opinion, the new Masons are absolutely fabulous. They are "golden age" pianos, they just happen to have been made more recently.

Define "younger".

The late aeolian period instruments were not nearly as good as today, or in their golden age, sometime before 1930. Today, the instruments (new) are apparently very very good, although I have not played or seen one to date. Younger is maybe not so good if it was Aeolian built. But Rank Piano is correct, as far as I know.

The new M&H instruments are spectacular.

'like'!!!

the burgett era M&Hs are exemplary instruments. my M&H Model A, circa 2000, is built like a sherman tank, full perimeter plate, renner action, patented tension resonator, and she tonally far outshone other instruments in her size range (IMHO). lots of bang for the buck.

My apologies - I should have been more specific. This piano was built in 1981. I'm not sure of the model yet but will fill you in once it has been confirmed.

A 1981 Mason & Hamlin (serial #88xxx or under) would have been made by Aeolian American, one of their last.

A slightly different take on this: to me they sound quite different (the older Masons (i.e. from the early 20th century) compared to today's pianos). I think the new Masons are nice but don't have to my ear at least that amazing orchestral and singing quality and the subtlety found in the best of the older Masons. The newer pianos have a brash and sometimes overly obvious quality not to my liking.

Sophia

At this point, condition will be more important than initial build quality. Even the Aeolian instruments can be nice.

I've recently looked at a 1980 BB. It's beautiful with a very wonderful sound, and the build quality seems fine. However, it has a Pratt-Reed action, which to me doesn't seem very responsive. Maybe it can be regulated to be more so, but I just couldn't play it. The dealer told me that it's already been regulated and that that's about as good as it's going to get (he agreed about the P-R action) Also, the keyboard is smaller than I'm used to. When compared to any other around it I could find, the keys were about a half-inch shorter from end (keyslip) to fallboard. I'm sure that made quite a difference in it's playability (at least for me anyway, a pro probably wouldn't have that much of a problem). Ultimately I had to pass on it because of that. The other aspects of the piano seemed just fine though.

I think it best to evaluate each instrument on its own merits, rather than over-generalizing vis a vis a given time period. My CC2 was made in 1960 and you couldn't get me to part with it for any amount of money. It is coming back from the dead slowly. I just got back the plated hardware today. It certainly uses lots of screws to hold things together, better than twice the amount of another piano I am restoring sitting side by side.

I'd like to second Sophia's thoughts. The pianos are very good but, to me, they sound nothing like vintage M & H instruments. Nothing like.

I feel that the new pianos must be intended to compete with Steinway, as they have a much bolder, virile and powerful sonority, with virtually nothing of the distinctive, perfumed color of the older instruments.

have to chuckle at the use of two senses (smell & sight) to describe a third (sound perception)

ps -- which, i should hasten to add, is fine if the perceiver is experiencing synesthesia.

A 1980 Mason & Hamlin would have an Aeolian (Wessell, Nickel & Gross) action. Pratt Read was later in the decade. The 1980s were a period of transition for Mason & Hamlin, so the exact date is important.

Your comment made me wonder if the "vintage" Masons had the same "distinctive, perfumed color" when they were NEW. Guess we'll never know for sure.

In the meantime, a "bolder, virile and powerful sonority" is nothing to sneeze at. I will admit, however, that my 2003 BB can be a bit difficult to control at times. The sheer volume of sound with the piano lid fully raised can be quite overwhelming.

Maybe it was '88, I don't remember.

I've been enjoying the comments here. I don't have enough experience with the vintage Masons (though I own one from the 20's myself) to venture a sound profile. The Burgett instruments I've played have a robust sound: solid, straightforward and appealing; yet I don't think they're trying to sound like S&S. It's true that their designer, Bruce Clark, has made intentional changes to the historical designs.

Karl Watson gets bonus points for me for "perfumed." I like that! Carey's point about newness is also well taken.

Hello Joe -

Thanks for appreciating the "perfumed" remark. You have hidden depth, esp. for a new music man. I remember that you have a CC but don't recall its vintage.

I did not say that Bruce Clark was building a piano that sounds like a Steinway. I said that it seemed to me that their intent was to compete with the Astoria piano. Somewhere along the way, a decision was made that the very singular and entrancing sonority of the old pianos was no longer viable.

I agree that it may have its limitations, but I prefer and would rather cope with them than to have to live with the typical Steinway and its often bully-boy thugishness. Older Masons have such an infinite color range coupled with profound depth that one could spend a lifetime and never exhaust their riches.

Now, if I were playing the Tschaikowsky Concerto with the Philharmonic, I would definitely want a D in order to come out alive. But, for more normal purposes, I would want a fine Mason or possibly a Chickering every time. The sound is more interesting and flexible.

Karl Watson,

Thank you for joining this thread.

I also appeciate your description of tone. It is so difficult to describe sound in words. A professor of mine once described the difficulty by saying, "Talking about sound is like dancing about painting."

Geez, I love that quote.

On a different note Karl, you have to meet Joe. You live on the same island, I believe, and you would get along famously as you both know TONS about this subject.

Also, I spoke with George McKinley recently and he sends his best regards.

I love Mason & Hamlins when they are right but like any piano from any age golden or otherwise the difference is in the way the soundboard was built and set up as well the quality of the action build. Mason & Hamlins have always been built like tanks.
I have a simply glorious Bb in my clientele from 1978 ish which is simply an amazing instrument.(her comments on my web site) I installed Issac hammer on it 18 years or more ago and it made a huge improvement but then last year we pulled the plate restrung it, changed the front duplex draft angles to reduce string breakage. I installed a new custom balanced action while saving the Isaac hammers. The level of performance went up astronomically. Even I was floored. It has a great board, and from the age every body loves to lambast. I'd love to take this piano to a small concert stage and listen to serious pianists cut loose. Rachmaninoff, Beethoven..watch out. I'm getting excited.
My sisters AA from 1951 is sitting right next to me. Awesome piece of work. Original board. Reworked action, new strings, bridges, block etc. Lived at the university of Ask. till 9 years ago.
That said & fwiw I have seen Masons from many ages vintages. I have heard BBs that sounded like 7 foot spinets and As and AAs that were amazing when prepped and hammered correctly.
Predominately I have seen many pre world war-2 ones with boards so split up as to be largely unrepairable, so be careful about being to enamored with the term golden age. All pianos are amazing machines but machines none the less. Strings degrade as do hammers and felt work.
Take Rich Gs. advice any time you may consider an older piano and take a rebuilder to see it and remember it is a machine...and a very old machine which isn't going to be sonorous or glorious in most cases with out significant amounts of copious skillful restoration.
Regards to all M & H lovers

All true and wise advice and I subscribe to all of it. I too have heard and played some fine Masons that came out of the Rochester works, BBs mostly and the occasional CC.

I don't believe for a moment that the vintage, Boston-era Masons don't require extensive rebuilding. After all, if the Rochester pianos are in need of it, surely the much, much older Boston instruments should be given stem to stern overhauls.

My point is simply this: that the scale design and general voicing approach of those pianos built, mainly in Boston are, to my ears, some of the greatest pianos ever made, Europe notwithstanding.

Bye the bye, I believe that most, if not all, had WN&G actions from the old Manhattan factory, the same building that the Steinways looted and pillaged after WN&G failed during the Depression. I'm not too crazy about those old actions, but I'm sure that David Stanwood could make them fly nicely.

Actually, the scales of Mason & Hamlins varied from time to time, which is an indication that they were not necessarily the best designs. With computers, it is fairly easy to clean them up, though.

Well, they appear to have been "cleaned up" nicely, in the very best semi-pro manner. Sing and rejoice.


Abandon hope all ye who enter here.