Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.

[David Love]

David S.:

I would tend to agree with you that all things being equal, we should 
improve.  However, there is all too often an underlying reality--cost.  I 
would love it if my customers would give me their pianos and a blank check 
but that rarely happens.  Most of the time I am working within tight 
parameters and must present cost benefit anaylses that resonate with the 
customers needs and means.  I agree that many of these old small Chickerings 
would benefit tonally from a heavier hammer.  But as you know, throwing a 
heavier hammer on there starts an unstoppable chain of events that must be 
seen through to the end if one wants to avoid a touchweight disaster.  Given 
that these are the restrictions under which I often find myself, I sometimes 
opt to try and reproduce as closely as possible the original design making 
small modifications where possible.  In the case of the Chickering I have 
mentioned, using a slightly forward knuckle position, a lighter shank and a 
slightly heavier hammer allows me to maintain the original leading pattern  
(3, 2, 1) and keep the inertia to a minimum and gain some tonal benefit from 
a slightly heavier hammer.

David Love


>From: "David Stanwood" <dstanwood@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
>To: pianotech@ptg.org
>Subject: Re: Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.
>Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 01:32:02 -0000
>
>Major issue here... should we reproduce what was original or "Improve"
>on it based on evolved knowledge?  I'm sure that my tuning mentor Bill
>Garlick would choose the former.  Based on what I've learned in the field 
>of
>Touch Weight Metrology I can't help but go for the broader dynamic range 
>and
>fuller tone that I know comes from from hammers that are in the High mid to
>high zone.  These hammer weights usually create disaster in regards to 
>touch
>weight when applied to old pianos.
>I also know that with expertise that any action may be configured to handle
>higher weight hammers.  The result usually unleashes a suprizing amount of
>tone potential so I would put myself in the latter catagory... I choose to
>"Improve".  Hammer weights have evolved upwards for good reasons.  Either
>choice is valid if it serves the need of the piano owner.
>
>David Stanwood
>
>>From: "Erwinpiano" <Erwinpiano@email.msn.com>
>>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
>>To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
>>Subject: Re: Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.
>>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:24:28 -0800
>>
>>Hi Brian
>>   I believe there might be one major step and oversight that I ,Yourself
>>and
>>many others  have made at the beginning of any chickering action rebuild
>>And
>>that is to weigh the original hammers and get over the shock of how
>>incredibly light they are.  And then after checking your gram scale a time
>>or two for accuuacy it is realized it was right .  The hmmrs. had to be
>>light for the leverages that were chosen and when the're set up as 
>>designed
>>they work well and if not well you're expieriencing that tooo heavy feel .
>>If you can't get the hammer wt. down a slight change in the knuckle
>>placement will get you there but will change the reg. requirements
>>slightly.
>>I have used the ronsen 14 lb. saepele molding and taperes as Newton
>>suggested from strike pt. to tail  and also recove or cove to reduce wt.
>>further.
>>        Your current options are as stated ( reducing wt.if possible) or
>>starting over uugghhh
>>        Good Luck   Dale Erwin
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com