Seems to me that all of the splayed actions I have seen are in quartergrands. The overall width of the piano wouldn't leave enough room for the keys to angle out as much, so do it in the action. Someone said to me yesterday that Chickering's basic rule was to never make two pianos exactly the same. Sigh. Dave Stocker, RPT Tumwater, WA From: William Truitt Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:18 To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why? Jim: I think your question falls into the category of The Great Mysteries of Chickering Piano Design. As a rebuilder who has suffered at the rim of many a Chickering, I too have a list of questions I want to ask dear old Jonas and his descendants when I pass through the Pearly Gates. Like, whassup with that four piece pinblock? And why do you hate me so much - what did I ever do to you - I wasn't even born yet! I suspect it has more to do with a designer falling too much in love with his ideas, no matter how bad they are. If you have ever looked at patents for piano design, you know he surely wasn't alone. Look at the bright side! At least it's not a Kranich and Bach. And yet I confess to a perverse affection for these old Chickerings. I know it's not good for me, but I can't stop myself. Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of jim ialeggio Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:21 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: [pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why? I've been wondering about the concept of the splayed grand action for a while. Why would a manufacturer do this to themselves? I don't mean this as a pejorative question. Rather, I have to assume manufacturers were chasing after some design goal with this splay, since angled shanks impose 88 different geometries, further (and somewhat excessively) complicating an action's already complicated collection of geometries. Chickering did this for what(?)...75 years. It wasn't a one off trick. And further, they had to pull it off in a production setting. So what might they have been up to? I can come up with a couple of guesses, but I wonder if any of you manufacturer design guys have any insight on this question. possibilities?: 1- the angled shank imposes a rotation on the hammer. Is there a tonal effect they were looking for, as the most aggressive angles were in the low tenor and bass? Reduction of bass power so as not to overpower the treble? 2- Is it the vestigial remains of a previous way of thinking about action design? 3- To my eye, the proportions of Chickering cases are often significantly more graceful than the cases of other modern pianos. Could the splay have allowed a visual reduction in the required acreage needed to house an action? The recent short thread on Brown actions brought this to mind. Jim I -- grandpianosolutions.com (under construction) Shirley, MA (978) 425-9026 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20090808/f2c1f049/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC