S&S D with high strings/low action stack

[Avery]

Just out of curiosity, have you talked to Kent Webb? He "might" be able to
help you solve this.

Avery

At 02:38 PM 10/16/2006, you wrote:
>Before you make Steinway's problem your problem, take it to a higher level.
>A service department tech is not necessarily in the position to give you the
>final yes or no on what they should be willing to do on warranty.  All
>"fixes" at this point are compromises.  You shouldn't have to do that on a
>new D, in my opinion.  I don't recall exactly but doesn't this piano belong
>to an institution?  Which dealer did they buy it from?  The institutional
>department head involved in the purchase as well as the dealer should also
>be in the loop.  You shouldn't allow yourself to be bullied into accepting
>anything less than a proper fix or replacement and the burden should not
>rest entirely on your shoulders.  BTW, keep a record of all correspondence.
>
>
>David Love
>davidlovepianos at comcast.net
>www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
>Of Andrew and Rebeca Anderson
>Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:13 AM
>To: Pianotech List
>Subject: Re: S&S D with high strings/low action stack
>
>Continuing saga:
>I spoke with a Steinway technician in the service department this
>morning (name slips me) and have the following solution(s) recommended,
>         He is sending 1/16" walnut shims cut to fit under the action feet
>and raise the action by that much, I'll have to re-time the checking
>&               reset let-off
>         he recommends buying the un-bored Steinway hammers and custom boring
>
>them to take up some of the over-striking difference
>                 (my measurements on the existing hammers suggest that they
>have
>been over-filed already by 1/8 -3/16" so my high grit           polishing
>isn't the first time this has been done.)
>We discussed string height and he gave one specification: note 66 is
>to be 7&3/4" +/- 1/8" above the key-bed.  I pointed out that my
>measurements put this area very close to 8".  He became a little
>defensive and said that fixing this would require rebuilding the
>piano and that Steinway wasn't going to do this (I had mentioned the
>piano was still under warranty).  I then asked him about Steinway
>policy regarding over-striking.  He plainly said that the hammers
>shouldn't overstrike.  Of-course they all do now by significantly
>more than the amount they have been filed under standard bore and
>most likely were by a significant amount when the piano was new.
>I mentioned checking and capsizing problems with too short hammer
>tails too far above the action and he didn't have much to add other
>than that shimming the action by 1/16 should help with the
>capsizing.  He couldn't get me stats on the size of the un-bored
>hammers.  I'm guessing they are the same size as the bored ones and
>I'm not too enthusiastic about boring those much lower on the
>tail.  Custom hammers by another hammer maker may be the better way
>to go, but than there is the Steinway Only politics to deal with...
>
>So, my solution is drifting towards this:
>         Shim the key-frame 1/16"
>         Shim the action stack 1/16"
>         Recommend new hammers (really this should be a warranty item too,
>there is significant labor in this)
>This gets me a third of the way with adequate clearance at the
>fall-board and 1/16" clearance at the pinblock with the drop screws
>backed all the way out.  Taller hammers will drag going in and out
>and I'll have to watch that (had a mishap on a Chinese-made piano
>yesterday).  By shimming both I reduce the problem to the
>neighborhood of  1/16" so a lower bore won't be so worrisome.
>
>Do any of you have more to add?
>
>Andrew Anderson, Artisan Piano