relevance of bridge pin spacing

[Ron Nossaman]

> <What's your "ideal" C-8 speaking length?
> 
> Original for this piano was 53mm. I have looked at 54 and 52 - neither 
> will work out much more than the top octave. So 53 appears to be ideal 
> for this piano.

That's what I set mine at - 53.


> Possibly the original bridge pin spacing from notes 35 to 66 were not 
> random afterall. Must look at this more closely. 

Yes, look again. The reason may not have been apparent the 
first time, and may not ever, but they likely had one, whether 
you might agree with it or not.


>This brings up another 
> thought: I also should be looking for more unison spacing fudge room 
> because I eliminated the original hitch pins and replaced with verticle. 
> I came as close to original alignment as possible but I am certain that 
> any errors are waiting to haunt me when I finally do the bridge pin 
> layout. 

You'll always see things you wish you'd noticed and adjusted 
during the layout before assembly. The vertical hitches, being 
bigger then the originals, will make for different back scale 
angles then the original. Can't be helped with roll pins, but 
hopefully you got close enough that the angles all sort of 
visually cancel out. You can get better angle control with 
something like the type 67 groov-pin, or driv-lok type G, if 
that's bothersome. 
http://www.groov-pin.com/grooved%20pins/gpins_types.htm 
http://www.driv-lok.com/groovedpins.asp


>The original bridge pin diameters of the top section were .091 
> (cannnot find replacements for this size) and I will use .086 - possibly 
> will gain some small space advantage here as well.

Yes, some.
Ron N