Ron O. First, thank you very kindly for putting down some words on this subject. Your post is greatly appreciated. Also, your reluctance to design change in this case echos well my own gut feelings. It was made in the first three months of his production. Still, and this is the eternal quandry in such matters... its in good enough shape to renew and make very fine music (again) but how far to go ? My own feelings up to now have told me to carefully remove the soundboard, carefully remove the ribs and bridge and re-rib the existing panel. A new cap on the old bridge root. I have felt that it would perhaps be ok to alter the rib scale and any modifications to the string scale that could be accomplished without relocating either bridge. These alterations could be acceptable if they assured a bit more clarity while maintaining the basic overall sound picture and if they increased the strength of the assembly for the long term. Historical concerns relative to these modest changes can be addressed by documenting well enough the origional design. I have two reasons for wanting to keep the old panel. First is the visual and second is the origional soundboard decal. I am open to replacing the panel however as I can get a good << old >> look using dark french polish flake. The decal stays however... one way or another. I can supply pictures of any particular part of this piano anyone wants. The instrument is on its feet still and I am in the early stages of tear down...so an underside picture will be a bit limited... but doable. Thanks again for the input. Cheers RicB Ron Overs writes: Yes, I believe you can have backscale lengths which are too long for the middle and and higher string sections. Sympathetic ringing can become quite intrusive when the backs are too long. We relocated the hitch pins for a shorter back scale in the mid and high sections of a KG6 Kawai we rebuilt a few years ago. The result was a definite improvement. In the case of Richard's early Blüthner, I would be reluctant to change it design-wise. I'm not often inclined towards preserving original older designs, but the piano in question is a very early Blüthner of which they are probably only a few in existence. I think it is worth keeping some of these significant earlier examples intact so that we can keep an overview of the past 300 years of piano evolution. Julius Blüthner turned 29 the year he built this piano. The changes which he incorporated into his instruments over the next thirty years was simply staggering. I saw an early Blüthner at the Griffith Ex Serviceman's Club in the early 70's. This concert grand was 10' 4.75" long, with an 85 note scale and a patent action. But in most other respects this instrument was a thoroughly contemporary piano. Just last year we did some minor repairs to a 1860 Blüthner which had transit damage. Again, like Richard's example, this piano was very primitive compare to the above mentioned concert piano of 1883 (built in his 49th year). Unfortunately, the Blüthner concert piano was lost in total-loss fire a few years after I saw it. I'd be interested in seeing an image of the underside of the sound board when you can get one Richard. Back to work. Currently drawing the rim-bending bucks for the 280. Ron O.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC