Pianotech

I'm with Del on this one. As pianos age the soundboard impedance lowers. The denser felt can be murderous on low impedance boards by propagating high hammer impact noise. Mute the three strings of a unison and strike with a dense-felted hammer verses a softer felt. You will get a hint of the amount of "thud" that will be present with the different hammers.

I'm with Del on this one. As pianos age the soundboard impedance lowers. The denser felt can be murderous on low impedance boards by propagating high hammer impact noise. Mute the three strings of a unison and strike with a dense-felted hammer verses a softer felt. You will get a hint of the amount of "thud" that will be present with the different hammers.

I agree with Roger and Del. The closest thing to the original will be something light with a relatively soft pressing. Ronsen does that best.  Extensive discussions about impedance matching have come up countless times over the years, and other than for those who think impedance is not a factor in piano tone you willi benefit from thinking about it that way. I'd recommend a search of the archives for those discussions.

If it's the original board (read "old" and stiffness compromised) you will need something light and resilient to reduce hammer:string contact time, which benefits sustain, and to help with the attack:sustain relationship. Starting with a slightly softer hammer can also help you maintain control of the attack phase over time. Who cares if it sounds good out of the box if it becomes strident after a minimum amount of playing time?  

That argues against Pacific Gold (too hard), current NY Steinway (too heavy), or hammers that might seem ok out of the box but can quickly become strident and hard to control at the attack phase without constant needing which ultimately shortens the productive life of the hammer, if you can even get the time you want. 

I don't think Weickert is necessarily the best choice. I tend to prefer Wurzen or Bacon from Ronsen. But you can't rely on people telling you what to put on, even the original rebuilder. A discussion with the customer with hammer samples to demonstrate is the best way. Those samples need to be treated, i.e., voiced, in a couple of sections of the piano (midrange and low treble are good places to start) and do some side by side comparison with the customer.   

But in the end the only way to get  real sense of this is by lots of experience and critical listening, side by side comparisons and the willingness to yank off what isn't working and try something else. 

My own choices have come down to Ronsen (usually Wurzen or Bacon), or Renner where it's appropriate. On vintage Steinways I rarely use other than Ronsen if it's up to me. In my opinion, nobody is producing anything that matches the original tonal response as closely. But some people prefer other hammers for different reasons: they like more "whump",  or a sharper, more percussive attack, or are just looking for something else. 

Voicing methods and skill do make a difference but choosing the right starting point matters. 

I'm with Del on this one. As pianos age the soundboard impedance lowers. The denser felt can be murderous on low impedance boards by propagating high hammer impact noise. Mute the three strings of a unison and strike with a dense-felted hammer verses a softer felt. You will get a hint of the amount of "thud" that will be present with the different hammers.

I agree with Roger and Del. The closest thing to the original will be something light with a relatively soft pressing. Ronsen does that best.  Extensive discussions about impedance matching have come up countless times over the years, and other than for those who think impedance is not a factor in piano tone you willi benefit from thinking about it that way. I'd recommend a search of the archives for those discussions. 

If it's the original board (read "old" and stiffness compromised) you will need something light and resilient to reduce hammer:string contact time, which benefits sustain, and to help with the attack:sustain relationship. Starting with a slightly softer hammer can also help you maintain control of the attack phase over time. Who cares if it sounds good out of the box if it becomes strident after a minimum amount of playing time?  

That argues against Pacific Gold (too hard), current NY Steinway (too heavy), or hammers that might seem ok out of the box but can quickly become strident and hard to control at the attack phase without constant needing which ultimately shortens the productive life of the hammer, if you can even get the time you want. 

I don't think Weickert is necessarily the best choice. I tend to prefer Wurzen or Bacon from Ronsen. But you can't rely on people telling you what to put on, even the original rebuilder. A discussion with the customer with hammer samples to demonstrate is the best way. Those samples need to be treated, i.e., voiced, in a couple of sections of the piano (midrange and low treble are good places to start) and do some side by side comparison with the customer.   

But in the end the only way to get  real sense of this is by lots of experience and critical listening, side by side comparisons and the willingness to yank off what isn't working and try something else. 

My own choices have come down to Ronsen (usually Wurzen or Bacon), or Renner where it's appropriate. On vintage Steinways I rarely use other than Ronsen if it's up to me. In my opinion, nobody is producing anything that matches the original tonal response as closely. But some people prefer other hammers for different reasons: they like more "whump",  or a sharper, more percussive attack, or are just looking for something else. 

Voicing methods and skill do make a difference but choosing the right starting point matters. 

I'm with Del on this one. As pianos age the soundboard impedance lowers. The denser felt can be murderous on low impedance boards by propagating high hammer impact noise. Mute the three strings of a unison and strike with a dense-felted hammer verses a softer felt. You will get a hint of the amount of "thud" that will be present with the different hammers.

I agree with Roger and Del. The closest thing to the original will be something light with a relatively soft pressing. Ronsen does that best.  Extensive discussions about impedance matching have come up countless times over the years, and other than for those who think impedance is not a factor in piano tone you willi benefit from thinking about it that way. I'd recommend a search of the archives for those discussions.

If it's the original board (read "old" and stiffness compromised) you will need something light and resilient to reduce hammer:string contact time, which benefits sustain, and to help with the attack:sustain relationship. Starting with a slightly softer hammer can also help you maintain control of the attack phase over time. Who cares if it sounds good out of the box if it becomes strident after a minimum amount of playing time?  

That argues against Pacific Gold (too hard), current NY Steinway (too heavy), or hammers that might seem ok out of the box but can quickly become strident and hard to control at the attack phase without constant needing which ultimately shortens the productive life of the hammer, if you can even get the time you want. 

I don't think Weickert is necessarily the best choice. I tend to prefer Wurzen or Bacon from Ronsen. But you can't rely on people telling you what to put on, even the original rebuilder. A discussion with the customer with hammer samples to demonstrate is the best way. Those samples need to be treated, i.e., voiced, in a couple of sections of the piano (midrange and low treble are good places to start) and do some side by side comparison with the customer.   

But in the end the only way to get  real sense of this is by lots of experience and critical listening, side by side comparisons and the willingness to yank off what isn't working and try something else. 

My own choices have come down to Ronsen (usually Wurzen or Bacon), or Renner where it's appropriate. On vintage Steinways I rarely use other than Ronsen if it's up to me. In my opinion, nobody is producing anything that matches the original tonal response as closely. But some people prefer other hammers for different reasons: they like more "whump",  or a sharper, more percussive attack, or are just looking for something else. 

Voicing methods and skill do make a difference but choosing the right starting point matters. 

I'm with Del on this one. As pianos age the soundboard impedance lowers. The denser felt can be murderous on low impedance boards by propagating high hammer impact noise. Mute the three strings of a unison and strike with a dense-felted hammer verses a softer felt. You will get a hint of the amount of "thud" that will be present with the different hammers.

Geoff,
 You state that the hammers on there now are replacements. In other words, no one knows exactly what the originals were like, both in terms of dimensions and weights.  It's pretty fair assumption the replacements were nothing like the originals.
Some of those old Steinways originally had very small and light hammers.  Much more so than we might think.

I was in a very similar  situation years ago with an 1880s - 1890s Steinway.  I learned a lot about wrong hammers, and I hope you don't have to learn that way I did  - the hard way.  I ended up with hammers that were both too heavy, and also too big - I was drilling through the felted part to get the short hammer bore distance I needed. But the good news was, the tails were plenty long... ;^]

If I were faced with such a situation again, I would look really, really closely at the action and keys.  I would check the regulation in detail - does the piano play properly, or can it be regulated to play properly with the current set-up? How is DW, UW, BW? Inertia? Has anything else been changed? Wippens, capstan position, action bracket shimming, re-leaded keys,  balance rail position (replaced key set) etc?
What is the action ratio?  Many old pianos had high action ratios, demanding smaller and lighter hammers than are common today.

If only the hammers were replaced it might be easier to get new hammers that will work be deducing the size and weight and working with samples. (eg. Take hammer #50 and put in in position of #40 etc) But if someone had realized the hammers were too massive, and began changing other things to "make it work" somehow, it could be a pretty involved job to get it back to a beautifully playing instrument.

If you feel it may be over your head, it is always a good idea to get second opinions from a local tech or two who has a lot of experience with these things. I know in your area there is a lot of expertise....
Good Luck.

Geoff,
 You state that the hammers on there now are replacements. In other words, no one knows exactly what the originals were like, both in terms of dimensions and weights.  It's pretty fair assumption the replacements were nothing like the originals.
Some of those old Steinways originally had very small and light hammers.  Much more so than we might think.

I was in a very similar  situation years ago with an 1880s - 1890s Steinway.  I learned a lot about wrong hammers, and I hope you don't have to learn that way I did  - the hard way.  I ended up with hammers that were both too heavy, and also too big - I was drilling through the felted part to get the short hammer bore distance I needed. But the good news was, the tails were plenty long... ;^]

If I were faced with such a situation again, I would look really, really closely at the action and keys.  I would check the regulation in detail - does the piano play properly, or can it be regulated to play properly with the current set-up? How is DW, UW, BW? Inertia? Has anything else been changed? Wippens, capstan position, action bracket shimming, re-leaded keys,  balance rail position (replaced key set) etc?
What is the action ratio?  Many old pianos had high action ratios, demanding smaller and lighter hammers than are common today.

If only the hammers were replaced it might be easier to get new hammers that will work be deducing the size and weight and working with samples. (eg. Take hammer #50 and put in in position of #40 etc) But if someone had realized the hammers were too massive, and began changing other things to "make it work" somehow, it could be a pretty involved job to get it back to a beautifully playing instrument.

If you feel it may be over your head, it is always a good idea to get second opinions from a local tech or two who has a lot of experience with these things. I know in your area there is a lot of expertise....
Good Luck.