capo-hardening vs hardened capo rod

[Richard West]

Some things in this long thread don't seem to add up.  So I have a few
questions:

1.  Why is harder, better?  1/2 of most pianos are strung using agraffes, ie,
brass.  Brass is not a hard metal.  As technicians we may not like to clean
capo bars on ocassion, but if a balance between soft and hard is what makes for
the best tone, then we may have to live with a softer capo.  We should be
happy; it's job security.

2.  If capo hardening only penetrates 1mm, it seems that such a small amount
would be filed off when preparing a raw plate for stringing right in the
factory.  Are we really dealing with a hardened capo even on a new piano?

3.  Why is strike point so critical/unforgiving in the octave around C6?  It
seems that if I have "zingers" in that area it's more often a strike point
problem than a capo bar problem, assuming that the capo has been cleaned up.

4.  In the battle for artist approval, why have "soft" capo bar pianos seemed
to be the instrument of choice?  I know this is a loaded question.  After all,
opinions are all over the map and what does the pianist know anyway?

Just stirring the pot a little.

Richard West

Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net>
> To: <caut@ptg.org>
> Sent: October 03, 2001 8:36 PM
> Subject: capo-hardening vs hardened capo rod
>
> > I am wondering why not use a simple rod as in some uprights for the string
> > cross over instead of a cast iron capo bar with all the vaguries involved?
> > The rod would offer an exact diameter and precise hardness since it would
> > be added on in the manufactoring process.    ---ric
> >
>
> Why not, indeed?  Actually, several grand manufacturers have done this as
> well. Yamaha, for one. And several old lesser-known U.S. makers that don't
> come to mind just now.
>
> There are a variety of other ways of accomplishing a good front string
> termination. In addition to the Baldwin termination piece mentioned by Roger
> (which only fails because of its too-shallow string deflection angles). The
> original Walter design had a separate manganese bronze casting pinned to a
> flat surface under the capo tastro bar. These bronzes have an extremely high
> tensile strength and hardness (compared to grey iron) and still have good
> lubricity characteristics.
>
> Some Sohmer's used an adjustable steel plate with a carefully milled string
> contact surface bolted to the front of a more-or-less standard cast capo
> tastro bar. It had the two advantages of being quite hard--whatever was the
> hardness of the steel used--and being adjustable for string height. Nice
> looking, as well.
>
> Another good technique is the inverted half-agraffe as used by early
> Chickerings along with a few--again, lesser-known--others. We also used this
> technique in the Fandrich Vertical. It's an excellent system combining good
> string termination with precise string alignment.
>
> The only reasons I can think of for not using one of the above is that they
> did not become traditional. That is, S&S did not use them. Any one of them
> would be an improvement over the system that has become traditional through
> the past century or so.
>
> Del