Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum At what point does a Steinway become a "Steinwas"?

This question is not confined to Steinways. It could apply to any older model of any respected piano marque - Steinway, Knabe, Grotrian, Mason & Hamlin, Steingraeber, whatever.

Probably the first piano parts needing replacement would be the hammers. Later on in the life of an instrument, the strings, the action, the soundboard, maybe even the plate would have to be replaced. Some other components might have to be replaced on extremely old or heavily-used pianos as well.

I was wondering which of these components (or combination of components) which, when replaced, would affect the touch and tone of the piano so much that the character of the original piano is lost, the name on the fallboard becomes meaningless, and the quality of the restorer's craftsmanship, parts and materials are all that matter.

This question has a few different answers, depending on whom you ask:

Are you asking a company's marketing/advertising department, a rebuilder, or a pianist?

fwiw, I don't think anyone has ever replaced a plate in a piano as part of a rebuilding job. In very rare cases, repairs of the plate have been done (you can read about that in the tech section here).

For me, the proof's in the playing: If it works well and sounds good, I support however it got to that point. There is a fundamental problem in your last question-- it's hard to tell how much the rebuilt piano deviated from the original, because the original piano (at the time of rebuilding) is so clapped-out that you can't really tell what the "character" of the instrument was in the first place...

I will say that the plate and the rim usually last the longest so you do not need to worry about replacing them. And then there is the sound board. Some love to keep the original one as much as possible. Others prefer a new one. There is no clear winner here. It all depends on the end result.

With the original plate, the original rim, the well restored original or a well matched new sound board, I will say the piano will retain most if not all if its sound quality. As for strings, actions, hammers, etc. They are expendables and you really want them to be new.

Well...that's not...exactly correct...If you ever visit, you'll get a rare story. Fitting a new plate is quite a job even when the factory shares precisely how.

Back to the original question: A piano changes its characteristics according to a variety of things, like aging, the person taking care of it, the amount of use that it gets, etc. It is not the same piano once it leaves the factory. Even before then, the final finishing work will vary according to who does it in the factory, and that may change again when the dealer's technician works on it, and again when the owner's tech works on it. So it is difficult to say when it crosses the line, if indeed there is one.

The whole "Steinwas" tactic is just a very aggressive fear based marketing campaign directed towards people who know very little about pianos. It is designed to distract the buyer from focusing on how the piano sounds and plays to get them to think about everything but the actual piano's performance.
One interesting thing about Steinway is that their perceived quality is so high that when a Steinway lover plays a good one, they say " now that's a real Steinway" regardless of whether it is new, used, custom, rebuilt, reconditioned, rebuilt with authentic parts and materials, rebuilt with new Steinway parts that greatly differ from the original parts, etc etc.

I think Keith hit the nail on the head.

Preserving the integrity of a really fine instrument, no matter what the brand or model, takes knowledge, passion, and lots of hard work. A truly artistic result has little to do with having factory parts. In fact, many of the factory parts available today are not meant at all to be used in models whose designs have changed substantially over the years or do not even exist today.

Often the best choice for these pianos, no matter what the brand, are boutique suppliers who make parts specifically for use in some of these instruments.

Bottom line - a remarkable instrument is not guaranteed by using a particular line of parts. It is guaranteed by a set of decisions that are made with intent by a team of experienced craftsmen who have a very specific goal in mind.

For this reason, the rebuilder and their set of skills is as important as the instrument itself.

In short, it is not the tool in the hand, but the hand that holds the tool.

Yea, what those guys just said! "Steinwas" is a term used by factory reps in an attempt to denigrate anything that they did not do. We don't usually see (if ever), an example from the Steinway restoration shop at the PTG yearly institute. We see jewels from Dale Irwin, Ron Nossaman, Chris Robinson, Ron Overs etc. But, I have never seen a restored factory job that would compete with the level of musical performance from the custom builders..

This question is directed at rebuilders/restorers and pianists.

I'm no marketer, but I have played an awful lot of Steinwases, on stages, in faculty offices, and in peoples' homes. I have also played ex-Knabes in churches, and even a few Yamahahas. I don't think Almaviva is trying to denigrate anything, and his question should not be so easily dismissed.

I hate dignifying such a lame marketing approach with another answer, but....oh well.

I would say if there was any merit at all to the term Steinwas, it would be a description of any Steinway that was nice at one point, but no longer is for whatever reason, be it wear and tear, exposure to a bad climate, or poor work done/ bad replacement part choices from the factory or from an independent tech.

In most of the above cases, the Steinwas can become a Steinwayagain if reworked by the right folks.

Of course, a lemon Steinway from the factory that gets reworked to become a great piano goes from being Steinwayonlyinname to NowImagreatSteinway.

I really like Keith Kerman's response on this.

Another perspective: Start with two pianos made by Steinway, both of which are being rebuilt.

One is being rebuilt by a firm that carefully measures and then orders new parts from a part-maker who replicates the parts that Steinway used to make the piano originally. When the rebuild is complete, the piano will be exactly what it was when it was made. (I am leaving the actual material on the hammers out of this equation, as it is my understanding that the material is often renewed and replaced over the life of the piano.)

One is being rebuilt by a firm that uses Steinway parts that work, but that are not the same specifications as the parts that were used in the original piano.

Which is closer to the original, if that is the goal? It is my understanding that rebuilds done at Steinway use the latter approach. Is this correct?

Thanks for your support, Dad.

Piano*Dad got it exactly right. I'm not denigrating anybody's restoration work or any piano marque.

Take a hypothetical restored piano - a 1907 Chickering parlour grand, for instance. Depending on the quality of the restoration work, the resulting piano could be one of the following:
1) a substandard instrument;
2) a fine piano, but one that does not have the same touch and tone as the Chickering when it was new; or
3) a piano that plays and sounds the same (or very nearly identical) as when it left the Chickering factory in 1907.

I am just curious as to how extensive the repairs, parts replacement, etc. can be while still retaining the touch and tone of the instrument when it was new.

I'm not so sure about the hammers being expendables. Many years ago I got to both play and record on a N.Y. Steinway D with the original hammers from many decades previous, and I've never played a Steinway that offered such a range of colours and effects (and the singing tone/sustain in the treble was glorious!). The piano was past its prime in terms of sound board and strings, the ultimate bass power was gone (and the bass had some noise in the tone as well thanks to the strings), but after that experience every other Steinway I've played by comparison just seems to have been lacking in range of colour.

Some of it may have been due to the piano technician who really knows how to voice hammers for more tone than attack in the sound.

He is holding on to those hammers in case I ever return and I don't think he would do this if any set of Steinway hammers can be made to give as much as any other set of Steinway hammers.


M.

Steinwas is merely a buzzword that Steinway use to indicate that any one part of the piano has been replaced with a non-Steinway part. OK, Steinway as far as I know don't make their own strings....

So, technically, if you replace the hammers on a Steinway with pattern hammers not bought from Steinways, then in Steinway's eyes, the piano becomes a Steinwas.

Of course, the Hamburg Steinway uses a renner action, but Steinway still sell the Steinway-renner parts, and as far as I know you can't buy these parts directly from renner themselves.

The question would be, how important are these parts to the sound and feel of the piano. Can you buy parts that function identically to the Steinway parts and achieve the same result?

I know that when Bluthner in London buy a grand with a patent action, they send it for rebuilding and the action and keyboard are replaced with a roller action and new keyboard to fit the new action. The piano is no longer a Bluthner patent action piano, but Bluthner will say that the piano is still a Bluthner. It isn't fitted with a 'Bluthner' action, but a renner. The fact is that their rebuilds are still Bluthners because they still sound like Bluthners.

I guess if the Steinway still sounds like a Steinway and still feels like a Steinway then, it's a Steinway. Sometimes the rebuilder will go beyond the original spec of the instrument and do something which, in their view, improves the piano. They will do things to make the piano sustain better, sing more, and be more responsive. Thing is, if that makes it a Steinwas (or a Bechwas or a Bluthwas), I don't care if the piano sounds amazing.

In the UK, Steinway don't actively denegrate another rebuilders work, it's not like in America, but they do say that they don't consider the piano a Steinway if it's been rebuilt with different parts. It's a sales thing. All of the pianos they sell have Steinway parts in them, and they want to maintain consistency. They don't sell pianos that have been restored by other workshops, and that's fine. They get the business.

I disagree that a Steinway rebuilt by someone else is no longer a Steinway. Have a listen to this Steinwas model D and see what you think. It was made in 2000 but dropped. It has been given a new soundboard, (not by Steinway), and a new action (Steinway).

The piano at this stage was very very newly rebuilt and so there were still some settling issues - some dampers needed regulated etc, and it still had to undergo some tuning, but it's a nice piano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nneO7Rmb7do

I used to be a total Hamburg Steinway fan, but you know what, the New York ones have really grown on me. They have a sweeter quality, they seem to have more colour, and a larger dynamic range, and although they have great power, they are also capable of sounding like a great singer.

Or a Yamahasbeen, an Extonia, a Shamberger, a Ravenscroft Nevermore...

Extonia! That's the best I've heard. Actually I know someone with an Extonia, it is a 1988 9' Estonia that had a new soundboard fitted in 2007. It went from being a rough as anything sounding piano to being absolutely sublime.

Michael,
I wrote a book for piano technicians that covered the differences between "original" Steinway hammers and the more modern versions.

The hammers you experienced most surely were made with mahogany wood and were trimmed on the sides to be tapered and slightly narrower than what is typical in newer Steinways. (And other brands too).

Lighter hammers return from the string quicker and this reduces their damping effect hence you experience more sustain. This is especially noted in the upper half of the keyboard compass. Also the impact noise of the hammer is reduced. Lower weight hammers exhibit reduce inertia which allows the pianist to input a wider range of velocity to the hammer. This increase dynamic range.

Back to the "Steinwas" topic now: Because Steinway started to use heavier hammers post WW2, Hamburg reduced the action leverage by moving the knuckle towards the hammer. NY followed suite in about 1984. I think all those pianos can be called "Steinwas"! For over 140 years Steinways had actions with some of the highest sum total leverage. Now they don't!

I don't think his question is being dismissed at all, I think that the marketing term Steinwas is being dismissed.

I am assuming that the awful lot of Steinways that you played that you are calling Steinwases were what you consider poor performing Steinways. Had you played all of these Steinways at another point in time where they were much better? Do you consider them Steinwases because they don't have what you consider to be the characteristic Steinway tone and touch? If this is the case, is it because of wear and tear, or bad work, or neglect, or bad original parts, or poor choices in replacement parts?