Hi Theodore, You must have a right arm that looks like a thigh. <G> Seriously though, I tuned a lot of Hamilton studios in practice rooms the first year or so I was in business and found it to be valuable training for dealing with tight pins. In retrospect, they weren't nearly as abusive as the average new Kimball. Actually, it's not the tight pins I object to with these blocks, as much as the erratic pin torque. The normal, no, usual variations in tuning pin diameter within a set makes uniform torque virtually impossible with a block this dense. About ten or twelve years ago, I was doing some tuning work for a Baldwin dealer who has since gone on to less stressful employment. He had been getting complaints from the floor tuner about the pin torque in a new SD-10 (9'). I took my torque wrench over and we went through the piano together taking readings, and making notes. This was in the Summer, and the readings ranged from just at 300 in/lb to about 25. All of the low torque readings had pins riding the plate, but not all the plate riders had low torque readings (just to confuse the issue). We called Baldwin and talked to Alan Vincent, who was the "Technical Interface" at the time. He said that they carefully checked torque readings at the factory and fixed anything that read over 300 in/lb. He didn't mention raising low readings. I don't know at what torque the plastic deformation limit is exceeded in a 2/0 tuning pin, but I doubt it's an awful lot higher than this. Anybody know? Mr. Vincent also staunchly defended and dismissed the absence of plate bushings as "traditional" and had a few things to say about the pinblock as well. His story was that this block was chosen because of it's dimensional stability with humidity changes. In other words, the changes in pin torque between Winter and Summer will be minimal. This was to make the tuning easier and more stable, and the block should last nearly forever. Admirable intent! He also maintained that one couldn't expect any better uniformity of pin torque in a production situation because they couldn't take the time to custom fit each individual tuning pin as one person could in a small shop. This was news to me. I wasn't aware that a one person shop could take the time to custom fit each individual pin in a block when rebuilding and still feed the employee. Interesting concepts. Not getting any help from the fountainhead, we decided to wait and see what Winter brought. We attacked the piano again in November with my torque wrench and found readings from a high of about 225 in/lb to lows below 10. So much for dimensional stability. He eventually sold the piano somewhere out of state, so I don't know how it fared after that. So that's what I've got against the Baldwin pinblock. It doesn't leave the manufacturer enough margin for error to work well in a production environment. With the best of all possible intentions, and lavishing much more care than is economically feasible, they couldn't produce a product with uniform tuning pin torque, using this block, even with bigger plate holes or bushings. Perhaps with tapered pins like the old Vose. That's also why I use Delignit. There is a greater margin for error so I am not required to supply a degree of perfection I'm not capable of. It makes me look better than I am. Are we havin' fun yet? Ron At 02:01 AM 12/31/97 EST, you wrote: >to Ron Nossaman > I learned to tune on those Baldwin granite blocks >for about 2 years before I ever tuned anything else, and after all of those >years, If theyre not granite theyre loose. It takes some getting used to, what >is really too loose. I love them!!! > Happy New Year > Theodore > > Ron Nossaman
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC