Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Mason & Hamlin ridiculously heavy?

I have a Mason and Hamlin CC2, 9 footer, as opposed to the CC's 9'4". It does NOT have a full perimeter plate or double tension resonators.....but it does have a combined thickness of 3.75 inches of inner and outer rim of laminated maple. Compare that to a Steinway D's rim width at about an inch or so less and it is not hard to figure where the extra weight is coming from. The philosophy behind both the rim thickness and the tension resonator, of course, has always been to stabilize the foundation to which the board is attached and, at least theoretically, maintain indefinitely the board's crown. If you German fellows want to see a Mason in Germany, you can always make me an offer I can't refuse! ;0)

The other consideration is that the CC, at 9'4" is at least four inches LONGER than MOST of the others to which it is being compared.....that much more piano to lift!!!

Whatever the other benefits to these two features may be, they do not (can not) “maintain indefinitely the board’s crown.” In the real world (as opposed to the marketing world in which new realities are created every day) they have little, if anything to do with maintaining soundboard crown.

Del

Thus, my caveat - "at least theoretically". And, indeed, if the soundboard's crown is the key to optimum amplification and tone production, then the practice of "shimming" a 100, or even 50, year old soundboard to "maintain" the "original" sound of the piano is a farce. Let's call a spade a spade here and admit that NO soundboard, subjected for 50 or 100 years to the compressive force of 20 tons of string tension and downbearing, will maintain its ORIGINAL cell structure or crown, and thus its original sound producing properties. Rebuilders push the concept of salvaging of the "original" board thing for only two reasons- to save themselves the manhours AND the expense of installing a new board, which then translates into bigger profits.

I noticed that the Baldwin SD10E concert grand was conspicuously absent from the opening and subsequent updated posts. The SD10's uncrated weight is virtually identical to Steinway's at 481 kg, or 1,060 lbs. Regarding the rim construction, it is 33 plies, the inner rim/outer rims combined being 82.6 mm or 3 1/4". The piano has five braces of 123.825 mm or 4 7/8" in depth.

Steinway D inner & outer rims are also 3-1/4".
http://www.steinway.com/steinway/specs/model_d.shtml

Why so heavy?


It could be the lead in the pedals.


fingers

I don't know why people make such a big fuss over the combined width of the inner and outer rims. The combined width of the two rims on my piano is 4 1/4". The outer rim contributes a paltry 3/4" to that combined width.

Derick

Thanks! I added Baldwin SD10E to the list. I looked up the Baldwin website before, and the 481 kg./1060 lb. info was not on the website, that's why the SD10 has been missing from the list (until you provided that info).

Hi Derrik II,

Outer rim widths differ. The Baldwin SD10's is 1 9/16".

Hi Axtremus,

You're welcome!

Absolutely! When you mentioned this, I thought of an old Wurlizter grand I had played on. The thing felt like it kept crawling across the stage! After playing big passages, I had to keep adjusting the bench so I could play more. In this instance, castor cups would be highly recommended!

John

Even the "Little M&H A" is compatible with it's big brother
M&H A /173 / 381 / 2.2 = 1400lbs

That information is incorrect.

Please see http://www.masonhamlin.com/specification/

The M&H A weighs in at 800 lbs, AA at 900 lbs, BB at 1020 lbs, and the 50" upright at 460 lbs.

Cripes my Mason BB (7 footer) weighs about as much as the 4 lightest 9 footers on that list.

I am curious if the total soundboard area shows a similar over engineered philosophy in comparison to other brands.

Somewhere in between??
http://www.faustharrisonpianos.com/mason-hamlin-steinway-comparison.htm

M&H A @ 860lbs compared to S&S L @ 610lbs. Faust Harrison correctly states the BB @ 1020lbs & the S&S B at 760lbs.

Steinway states that the Model D weighs in @ 990lbs.
http://www.steinway.com/steinway/specs/model_d.shtml

Has the new M&H A been put on a diet?? I have moved mine and I can tell you they are HEAVY (unlike my brother). Give or take 60lbs, they are a bear to move.

Yes, it also gives the metric weight of "480 kg" on the same page, and in my original list, I list the metric "480 kg" number. I keep the list in metric because most of the pianos are non-American and their manufacturers provide metric numbers.

Actually, 990 lbs translate to only 450 kg. (1 kg = 2.2 lbs.) So there is an inconsistency on the Steinway specification page for their Model D.

Thanks.

The brochure that came with my M&H A says it weighs 840 pounds. Obviously we need somebody to settle this controversy and put the darned thing on a scale.

They may only weigh low 800's with M' behind the keys, but over 900 with me seated behind them.

Ax...I only wanted to post those #'s to clarify in my own mind, where I had seen the info (and that I haven't started to get the dreaded "CRS" syndrome - Can't Remember S#$%). If I have 3 large bathroom scales, I'd try to clarify it myself (at least for a 1919 M&H A)

Here's a link to a much more roboust convert software.
http://joshmadison.net/software/

I was wondering if it might be the type of wood. So I rounded up the specs on my 7' Nordiska which is also made of Maple which is naturally dense:

Nordiska / 7'; 215 cm / 771 lbs; 351 kg / 1.63

as well as for the 9 footer as quoted by the importer:

Nordiska / 9'; 275 cm / 1367 lbs; 621 kg / 2.26

No matter how you slice it, the smaller M&H's are quite heavy. The big one seems more comparable, however.

Howard