Speaking of hammers...

[David Love]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Like David Stanwood has suggested, I have gotten into the habit of =
specifying my hammerweight goal with the manufacturer (using number 16, =
40 and 64) and let them pick a set that will get me there without =
turning the hammers into dust.  A good supplier will be able to weigh =
some samples and get the right set to you.  Renner, Abel (Brooks), =
Ronsen and Isaac all seem to be able to do that.  Steinway is not as =
easy but you can specify that they preinspect the set and be sure not to =
send one that is too bulky if that is your concern.  You might get =
lucky.

David Love =20
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Delwin D Fandrich=20
  To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
  Sent: October 21, 2001 3:30 PM
  Subject: Re: Speaking of hammers...



    ----- Original Message -----=20
    From: ANRPiano@AOL.COM=20
    To: pianotech@ptg.org=20
    Sent: October 21, 2001 5:57 AM
    Subject: Re: Speaking of hammers...


    In a message dated 10/16/2001 10:48:57 AM Central Daylight Time, =
pianobuilders@olynet.com writes:=20



      As a start perhaps the manufacturer could weigh just those hammers =
he intends to be #1, #30, #60 and #88 and correlate those into =
Stanwood's curves. If the manufacturing tolerances are reasonable random =
samples might well be sufficient. At this point, I'd be really happy =
with just that. Though we'd still be some distance from ideal at least =
it would be one small step in the right direction.=20



    Would these be pretapered, coved, what about the tail?  I am afraid =
there are too many variables to do anything here however great the need. =
 While those here in this discussion may be willing to pay a little =
extra for their hammers if this information were made available, I fear =
the demand would not be large enough for the manufactures to bother =
with.=20

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---


  There are always good reasons for doing nothing. Still, I should think =
if we all thought about this a bit we could come up with a couple of =
simple standards that would tell us a whole lot more than 14 pound or 16 =
pound does.=20

  I don't see why this should cost any more than saying, "you're getting =
16# hammers." Given reasonable production controls there shouldn't be =
all that much difference from one set to the next in a given hammer =
design. So, what is the design standard? Not all that difficult once =
there is agreement on the standard we're after.=20

  With all the other committee's PTG has going that really have nothing =
at all to do with the piano, perhaps one or two that could actually make =
our work lives easier might be in order. How about one on "Replacement =
Parts Standards?"

  Del



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/5f/2c/50/0b/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--