|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
77 members (beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, Abdulrohmanoman, accordeur, Animisha, Anglagard44, 13 invisible),
1,935
guests, and
463
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 31
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 31 |
Are the younger Mason and Hamlin grand pianos a quality instrument like the 'golden age'-era models are?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,006
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,006 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,278
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,278 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,749
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,749 |
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.
1942 Baldwin M
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 11,199 |
The new M&H instruments are spectacular.
Piano Industry Consultant
Co-author (with Larry Fine) of Practical Piano Valuation www.jasonsmc@msn.com
Contributing Editor & Consultant - Acoustic & Digital Piano Buyer
Retired owned of Jasons Music Center Maryland/DC/No. VA Family Owned and Operated Since 1937.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,983
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,983 |
The new M&H instruments are spectacular. 'like'!!!
"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and life to everything."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,302
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,302 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 31
Full Member
|
OP
Full Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 31 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060 |
A 1981 Mason & Hamlin (serial #88xxx or under) would have been made by Aeolian American, one of their last.
Semipro Tech
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,546 |
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
Last edited by sophial; 12/28/11 06:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,489
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,489 |
At this point, condition will be more important than initial build quality. Even the Aeolian instruments can be nice.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 164
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 164 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,278
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,278 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 951
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 951 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,302
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,302 |
... 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.
Last edited by Entheo; 12/29/11 03:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 32,060 |
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. 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.
Semipro Tech
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 13,956 |
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 164
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 164 |
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. 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. Maybe it was '88, I don't remember.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,631
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,631 |
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. 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 951
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 951 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|