[pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why?

[Terry Farrell]

Hey - those old Chickering quarter grands are one of the few pianos  
you'll not need to install a fish in.......... (only pianos I've seen  
like that).

Terry Farrell

On Aug 8, 2009, at 3:18 PM, William Truitt wrote:

> 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/a7687af4/attachment-0001.htm>