Steinway oddity

[Robin Hufford]

Hello Michael:
Some updated info relevant to this subject and others:.

Robin Hufford wrote:

> Hello again Michael,
>      At the tail of the piano on the leftmost side of the plate is both a patent
> date - which is the normal decorative patent date one finds on the plate in
> various locations, along with what are nearly advertisements.   It is designed
> to be read from the back of the piano - that is it is upside down if you read it
> from the front.  Immediately below this is a date stamped into the plate
> thusly:  16.6/93.  This is a date, as is the patent date stamped close by.  Just
> below this date about an inch away is the number 2 which I take to be the scale
> designation.
>      I have an identical 1895 A:  it is configured exactly the same with the
> only difference being the dating date which ends in 95.  Later the dot in the
> embossing was replaced with a slash.
>      In the shop are two B's with similar dating marks and, here I rely on the
> vicissitudes of  memory,

Several slip ups have been made,  of late due to this reliance, one being the claim
made a few weeks ago that Steinway ribs were crowned when in fact they are flat and
the caul is curved.   I have always been aware that a rib I retrieved from the
factory was indeed flat but remembered some curvature:  that was the curved caul.
     A second slip up in the post comparing Chickering and Steinway rail and style
construction of the keybed.  I had explained to me at the factory the unglued method
used by Steinway but, in the heat of the moment while extolling the virtues of
Chickering's system, I contrasted it to Steinways and, erroneously, commented upon
Steinways system as glued.  The difference in the two lies more in the orientation
of the rail and stile within the action cavity. Both are floating.  Other
differences are characteristic of the keyframes themselves.

> they also have the decorative patent date arranged
> similarly.  I'll check on this tomorrow.  The scale designation, if memory
> serves, is, I believe, 173.

Finally, a third mea culpa:
These two B's appear to be dated in the same manner as described above but lack the
decorative patent date found nearby on the A's.

>
>      So, to clear up some of the confusion - early pianos had a patent date
> stamped just along the edge of the plate, oriented to be read from the tail.
> These appear upside down when trying to read the dating and scale marks which
> are nearby as they are oriented so as to be read from the front.   At some point
> the patent date was left off, then, subsequently, the dating was encrypted,
> etc.  I have seen these configurations on many, many pianos.

Again, the B's lack the patent dating in the analagous position.
Regards, Robin Hufford

>
>      The patent dating, along with the decriptive information is designed  to be
> read from  positions located on the outside of the plate; the dating  and
> scaling info are oriented such that they appear to have been intended to be read
> from the front.
> Regards, Robin Hufford
> Michael Gamble wrote:
>









>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives