Unusual rib structure?

[Ron Nossaman]

>OK, thanks for the explanation (and the photo)!

Sure, if I got it right, but I'll pass thanks for the photo on to John Hartman.


>Hmmmm...  I doubt it was for reasons of boasting more square inches.  I
>actually have one of the old Wissner catalogs (from 1914, I think), and
>there's very little in the way of specs (Style H / Wissner Concert Grand /
>The concert pianist's choice / length 8 feet 11 inches', width 5 feet / Made
>in ebony, mahogany, and oak" .  Of course most things back then were sold
>with quite a paucity of specifications.

Boasting rights or not, the thinking then, as now, was/is predominantly 
that a bigger soundboard is a better soundboard, and the numbers are often 
included in the brochures.


>Were cutoff bars consistent with
>the technology of the day (1933)?

They sure were. Some had them, some didn't, but even most of those that had 
them didn't cut off much of the soundboard. This is curious to me. The 
benefit was perceived to the degree that time and materials were spent 
installing it, but the cutoff was still generally kept as small as 
possible. Perhaps it has to do with keeping the ribs long for compression 
crowning, where the longer the rib, the higher the crown. Perhaps not.


> > >Was it a way of bracing the crown, which is quite a lovely one.
> >
> > Measured where?
>
>As I recall, roughly the tail-most 2/3 of the soundboard, measured parallel
>to the ribs.  I didn't really have adequate access to the remainder of the
>soundboard to stretch a line.  It has about a 1/4" crown in these areas.
>
>Peace,
>Sarah

That's why I asked. Everyone wants to measure crown in the place where 
soundboards nearly never go concave, and never the place where they nearly 
always do. How does it look in octave 6, where crown typically reverses?

Ron N