[pianotech] brass rail duplication

[Encore Pianos]

Thanks for our input, Ron.  But, try as I might, I can't seem to shrink
myself as small as you want me to be.

Yeh, it's a junk job.  As my daughter used to say when she was being a young
smarty pants, well, duh.  Thank you for stating the obvious, I never would
have gotten it otherwise.  

Likewise for all the other oh - so - witty drivel associated with the
"contextualization" of the job which you have so graciously laid out for me.


Sometimes you are just too clever and snarky for anyone's good, including
your own, Ron.    Your role as the "mind police" is a self-appointed
position and not universally recognized.    

Next time you find yourself in a bad mood Ron,  try the novel experience of
keeping it to yourself.  (for the benefit of all mankind)


Most sincerely yours,

Will





-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:59 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] brass rail duplication

On 9/11/2012 8:05 PM, Encore Pianos wrote:

> Finally, the 64,000 dollar question:  Would any of my dear readers 
> find a tolerance of .035 acceptable, or is that value totally out to
lunch?
> If you were in my shoes, where would you be finding yourself sitting?

A whole bunch of things, most of which I won't get into.

Point one: it's a junk job; old parts put back on a new rail. That's for
perspective.

Yes, the duplication should have been more accurate, but you wouldn't have
replaced old action parts with new and not had to have done extensive
regulation, so that's not a crisis.

0.035" will NOT adversely affect the intersecting arcs/geometry/stars
alignment adversely. Get real. And that pittance made the hammers hit the
damper heads, and that's a problem?

I'd have just shimmed the rail up as necessary to get the center pin in a
working position and gotten on with it without starting a cost escalation
landslide that should have been addressed in the planning stage. It already
has too much money and time involved for what it is, and the action parts
are still 100 years old, which puts hair splitting and puffing up in
indignation on the back burner. The compromises are already outlined by the
job, so make it work without wasting any more money and time than has
already been done. The bigger the deal that is made of this, and the more
expensive it gets, the greater (justifiably) the customer's expectation of
quality and performance, which isn't in the job in the first place. You've
adopted an elephant with diarrhea. 
Congratulations, and good luck.
Ron N