Baldwin Bridges

[Ron Nossaman]

>It was actually a rather good idea. Just one that was very poorly executed.
>I trust the process has improved some since the late 80s.
>
>Del

Yes, a clever idea. Interesting, but even if there had been someone with
the minimal woodworking and machine skills to produce reasonably uniform
thicknesses from the planer, what are the odds that the resulting crown
would "match" that of any given board? Slim to none would be my guess,
given the differences from plank to plank in both the maple of the bridges,
and the spruce of the soundboard. I know you didn't mean that literally,
but I'm not all that convinced that crowning a bridge has any detectable
enhancing effect on performance anyway - at least in grands. A "flat"
bridge lays flat on the boards I've tried it on just like a "crowned"
bridge does. I haven't put any soundboards in verticals though, so I can't
say one way or another there. 

Up through last year, I was finding all sorts of weird bearing readings and
soundboard crown heights and directions in the Baldwin verticals, so I
don't think they ever found someone who could run the planers. Amazing.
It's just not supposed to be that difficult.

Now I haven't built a bridge notcher, so I'm not speaking from specific
experience, but why wouldn't they build it to index off the hold down on
top, rather than the bottom? That would maintain the notch depth relative
to the top however tall the bridge was. I suppose it would be more
expensive and complicated to raise and lower the table or the hold down and
cutter assembly than just the hold down. But still.

Thanks for the look behind the curtain. It's a strange world out there in
manufacturing land.


Ron N