Screw stringers

[Richard Moody]

----------
> From: Bill Ballard <yardbird@sover.net>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re:  Re: hard pounding
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 6:11 AM
> 
> On   Mon, 13 Apr JIM("Sun-Yet Jim")<JIMRPT@aol.com> wrote:
> >  It would seem to be that there is a more direct correlation between
device
> >movement and string movement in the Mason & Hamlin "screw stringer"
> >arrangement than there is in the pin/pinblock arrangement......but the
> >arrangement we have to work with on a daily basis is the
pin/pinblock...go
> >figure.
> 
> Marketplace rules! The legend as it was passed on to me 25 years ago was
> that, M&H abandoned the screwstringer design when it became clear that
> tuners in the field would have nothing to do with it. 

I  heard that proposition, about the same time ago.  Yes the screw
stringers seemed to be more stable in tuning, but I can't believe a
company would bank their sales on what tuners would do  (not do if you
think about it) than what customers might want to buy because it needed
less tuning.  
	I think the reality  is that screw stringers cost more to produce.
Ever tried to replace one string on one.  Just think of what the factory
had to go through to put all the strings on just one unit... 
	Also Mason and Hamlin was not the only factory to produce screw
stringers.  I have digital pictures of one from Holland from M Van Loon.
(which I will be glad to share with permission) I don't think those have
been in production for at least 80 years.  

	Actually in this day of electronic tuning, I  think screw stringers would
tune faster by that method.  There is hope yet.......

Richard Moody