Conover was chickering

[Erwinspiano@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 3/16/2002 9:17:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
JWyatt1492@AOL.COM writes:


> Subj:chickering 
> Date:3/16/2002 9:17:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:JWyatt1492@AOL.COM">JWyatt1492@AOL.COM</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
>           Jack

           What can you tell me about the conover 77 you refferred to in this 
post. Size and all. I believe I saw a conover 5FT.8" in David Hughes shop 
some time ago that was a spittin image of the Mason A. and sounded just as 
good. Amazing sustain ,partly Dave and Judys fault of course to be sure, but 
also an excellent design. Do any of you all see many of these? I'd love to 
get one cheap to rebuild.
 Yeah who wouldn't?
  By the way my desparaging remarks about Chickering 1/4 grands was directed 
primarily at the 123 &133 though I don't keep up on chickering model 
designations. I have rebuilt the 5 ft. 8 " and thought it quite good as you 
say.
>>>>>>>>>>>Dale Erwin<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

> 
> Hello to All,
>   
>     Its great to see this interest in old pianos.
> Chickering had a full plate in Squares in 1837.
> In 1840 he built a grand (winged piano) with a
> full plate. He got around to getting a patent
> in 1843.  By the way this plate was mortised 
> into the case.  
>   Aeolian bought Chickering in 1909.
> At that time the most popular Chickening
> grands were the 77, 109, 110, 116, and 105.
> Not real good pianos, but for then they were
> the best. 
>     Then the 123 and 133 came along  and they    
> both were very inconsistent. Neither offered assurance
> of success when you rebuilt one.
>     Aeolian then came out with the 135, the 145
> and the 123-A.  These were great pianos. The
> 145 is one of the four best 5ft 8in grands in the world. 
> The 135 was a good 5ft 3in. and the 123- A  a great
> 6ft.3in.  
>    Bottom line is that Aeolian improved these pianos.  
> This is contrary to the  popular perception about  
> Aeolian.  The facts seem to always be dull, the rumors 
> are always better and it seems also that we accept 
> something bad quicker that something
> good.
>   I had the good fortune to rebuild a "145", a Conover "77"
> and a Mason&Hamlin "A-6" in a row.  I hope all of you 
> have this good fortune one day.
> 
> Regards to All,
> Jack Wyatt
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/65/5f/81/25/attachment.htm

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