Tuning Pin Size

[David Love]

Paul:

Perhaps I should read your article.  But do you (or others) think that
Steinway was right to go to a fatter pin given their system?  What about
restringing a Steinway with a new block with #1 pins?  Will it create
problems?

David Love


----- Original Message -----
From: <larudee@pacbell.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: January 24, 2002 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Tuning Pin Size


> |John,
>
> What David is calling #1 and #2 are generally called 1/0 and 2/0, which is
the
> same as 0 and 00.  the corresponding diameters are .276" and .282" or
7.00mm.
> and 7.15mm.  The 6.75mm. pins are the true size 1 pins, the size number
> increasing as the diameter decreases.  This size is in the Fletcher and
Newman
> catalog, but not generally available from U.S. distributers.
>
> For the pros and cons of increasing and decreasing pin size, you may be
> interested in the considerations set forth in my article on tuning pin
physics
> in the January and February issues of the PTG Journal, which are a bit
lengthy
> to reproduce here.  As for your thoughts about the use of 2/0 pin in new
pianos
> starting with Steinway (because of their closed pinblock design without
> bushings) and then being copied by other (primarily American)
manufacturers, I
> think that is exactly the case.
>
> Paul Larudee
>
> John Delacour wrote:
>
> > At 8:08 PM -0800 1/23/02, David Love wrote:
> > >I just finished restringing a couple of older pianos (Schiedmayer,
> > >Schomacker).  Both pianos were originally strung with #1 tuning
> > >pins.  This was nice since both blocks were good it allowed me to
> > >restring with #2's.  I'm curious when/why companies got in the habit
> > >of doing the initial stringing with #2's.  The improved tuning
> > >quality of a smaller pin would suggest using a #1, as I believe many
> > >Japanese makers do.  I know some rebuilders (Dale Erwin) are also
> > >stringing new blocks with #1's.  Is there any compelling reason not
> > >to use a #1 pin when installing a new block?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with American gauges and I gave up using gauge
> > numbers after a few months in the trade, since there seemed to be a
> > great vagueness about the actual diameters.  Under the old system, #0
> > or #00 would be the original size, I think.  However I have found
> > most German pianos used either a 6.70 - 6.75 mm. pin or a 6.85 - 6.90
> > pin.  Some had a turned thread and some a filed thread.  The evenness
> > and sharpness of the thread on the best old pins is not to be found
> > on any pin of modern manufacture.  It was most common for makers to
> > use a shorter pin (54 - 55 mm) than is generally used nowadays.
> >
> > I always use a 6.75 mm. pin in a new block and on original blocks I
> > am very often able to do the job with a pin 6.90 to 7.00 in diameter,
> > provided the piano has not been over-used.  The fact that the many,
> > if not most, of the old tuners tuned with a T-hammer, means probably
> > that less damage tended to be done by tuners.  The man who taught me
> > to tune used a T-hammer on grands till the end of his life!  How he
> > managed with Korean pianos, heaven knows.
> >
> > The French used French-made pins which were even thinner (6.60 mm)
> > and a few makers used a tapering pin.  Older Brinsmeads had a pin
> > tapering from about 6.75 to 6.50, so it is possible to restring using
> > the very smallest cylindrical pin (6.75 mm).
> >
> > As in so many things, the influence of Steinway practice may have
> > raised the size of the original pin.  The unbushed Steinway
> > string-plate requires the ise of a longer pin and, to avoid bending,
> > a fatter pin is required.
> >
> > At least that's about how I see it.  I can see no reason for not
> > using the smallest pin in a bushed string-plate or an open plank,
> > both of which I personally prefer.
> >
> > Did you have a look at the string tensions on the Schiedmayer?
Frightening!
> >
> > JD
>
>