Jon, > >Mind you, the piano experienced a very large G force event, since >it was sufficient to bend the centre-pins in the damper levers. > >Was the action shipped in a crate separate from the piano so the >hammer and wippen centers did not suffer this trauma? > >Jon Page No - that's an interesting point you raise Jon, because the hammer centres seemed to be fine. Even the wippen centres were mostly OK. We tied the hammers to the rest rail quite tightly using a specially made overhead-stick with felt to crush around the shanks. I suspect that this may have protected the hammer centres. The hammer rest rail on our piano is very rigid, so this may have helped also. The other factor which may have made the damper more susceptible to damage might be the lead weights in the levers. This would tend to make a G force event more likely to bend the damper flange centre pins, when compared to the other lever centres. When considering what the piano must have endured, it is remarkable that the case damage wasn't more severe. I did notice that the fitting which meets the horn-bolt looks to have taken a bit of a whack. It doesn't look to be as tightly fitted where it comes through the belly rail hole. Another interesting discovery we made on the way to Reno was that the hammer rest rail should be inverted before tying the hammers down. The rest rail baize was quite crushed under the hammer shanks by the time the piano arrived in Reno. On subsequent tours with the piano since its return to Sydney, we have been inverting the hammer rest rail to prevent the tie-down from crushing the rest baize. The felt on the tie-down rail is sufficient to hold the shanks. Regards, Ron O -- ______________________________ Website: http://www.overspianos.com.au Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au ______________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC