This topic is complicated and subject to wide opinion, however, I will
attempt to express my view by picking apart the points in question:

> Subject: Bechstein vs. Steinway
>
> A couple of years ago my daughter Alison bought a 1910 Model B
> Bechstein grand but fell out of love with it because, "The top octave
> doesn't sound right even after the piano has been tuned".  She had the
> instrument thoroughly examined by a piano tech who discovered a crack
> in the soundboard, so now she has her heart set on a Steinway.
>
> I thought list mates might be interested to read some of the comments
> she has received from somebody who hopes to sell her one :

<snip>

> The bridge in old Bechsteins is made of Beech, whereas
> Steinways used maple (and still do I think).  Maple is a far better
> material for this purpose, as the grain is more consistent and it is
> harder.

In general maple is the preferred bridge material.  I would, however,
argue it's hardness.  Many pianos, (particularly European), feature
beech pin blocks, (Delignite), which is considerably harder than maple.
I speak from experience when I say that you can't cut too many Delignite
pin blocks before you need a new blade.  As far as it's use in bridges,
I would agree that maple seems to possess a better acoustic quality.

>  It is my opinion that as a 'rule of thumb', instruments with
> maple bridges remain fresher for longer but this is a generalisation.
> Because of this, Bechsteins are more easily traumatised by
> re-stringing.

<snip>

In general loss of power can be attributed to three factors:

   1. Loss of sound board crown/down bearing.  This is common with old
      boards which commonly begin to flatten.  This is typically a
      result of age and the elements.  Inadequate down bearing as a
      result of a flattened board can drastically diminish a piano's
      tone.  Another phenomenon is "bridge roll", where by the upper
      treble section rolls slightly forward as the board looses crown
      unevenly.  This can create negative bearing in a hurry along the
      speaking length of the string.

   2. Loose bridge pins.  If the bridge pins are even the slightest bit
      loose, be it shrinking in the wood or small cracks forming,
      (including those not visible from the top), vibrative energy will
      be lost at the contact point.  Again, this can dramatically
      diminish tone and power.

   3. Failing glue joints.  If the bridges have a cap, the cap can
      become loose, (often without visible evidence), causing serious
      loss of power and tone.  I just finished a repair for a client
      with a loose bridge cap.  An entire section had absolutely no
      tone or volume whatsoever.  A loose glue joint between the bridge
      and the sound board or between the sound board and the rim can
      have the same effect.  Sound board cracks can also be a factor
      but not necessarily.  Problems relating to board cracks are more
      likely to be related to rib separation, although crown loss can
      also be related.

> "2.  The strike line and bore of the treble hammers is absolutely
> critical.  If this is out by less than a millimeter, the result is less
> than optimum.  If new hammers have been fitted then what you complain
> of is no surprise.  They are likely to be quite a bit heavier and
> harder than the originals as well.  But above all, the angle of the
> bore is probably inaccurate and this has resulted in an unsatisfactory
> compromise.

True.  If new hammers were installed incorrectly this can have a
detrimental effect on tone and power at the top end.  If the bore is
incorrect, however, you would also probably be experiencing back check
problems since the arc would be too high or low for proper checking.
This statement is pretty broad so I would get a second opinion.
Voicing could also be a major factor.  A little hardening on the top
end can go a long way.

<snip>

> "The older Steinways that pass through here are streets ahead of
> anything they make now

I would agree.  As one who has rebuilt many Steinways and spent some
time browsing the S&S factory, I think it is fair to say that the
instruments of yesterday and today are completely different.  The
fundamental design is the same but the materials, glues, and many
assembling procedures are substantially different.  The wood also comes
from different sources.  My personal tongue in cheek opinion is that
Steinway is not so much in the piano business as the are in the antique
reproduction business.

> (I have) a 1920s August Forster 5 ft. 4 in. grand, also black
> and fully reconditioned.

<snip>

> This action is superior in many respects to the Steinway, particularly
> the repetition spring configuration.  No Steinway can be regulated with
> such precision.

This is a broad opinion that could be argued either way by many.  Sounds
like a sales pitch.  Steinway has a better reputation, but Forster was
also a good piano.  I am not experienced in the early Forsters but I
have been impressed by the modern ones that I have seen.
<snip>

> If you must have a Steinway of this size go for a 1920s or 30s model
> 'O' which is a piano from heaven.  I have one coming in next week to
> be rebuilt.

I would agree that the model "O" is an awesome piano.  It has a very
well rounded tone and is in my personal top five list.  I can't help but
wonder why Steinway stopped production on this.  They are much better
than an "L" in my opinion.  If properly restored they can be a real gem.

I will make one last comment about the Bechstein.  On many of these
pianos the highest point of the treble sound board is "floating",
meaning that it is not glued to the rim.  This area is much more prone
to collapse over time than a traditional full glued board.  This
feature, however, would seem to suggest that the designers new that
there was a problem with volume in this area and were attempting to
correct it by floating the board.  Some years back I rebuilt a
Bechstein with this type design.  In spite of installing a new Bolduc
board and new bridge caps the last five or six notes still sounded week.
This may serve as evidence of a design problem.  I believe that the
Bechstein is a fine piano and gave Steinway a run for it's money in
it's day but it was not without fault.  There are, however, many other
fine pianos from this era that I highly respect other than the S&S "O".
I might suggest exploring the S&S model "A", the Mason & Hamlin "AA",
and several types of Knabes made during this time.  Provided that these
instruments are properly rebuilt down to the last screw they can
potentially run circles around many modern instruments.

Good Luck,

Rob Goodale, Registered Piano Technician
Las Vegas, NV