----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net> To: <caut@ptg.org> Sent: October 03, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: capo-hardening vs hardened capo rod > I am wondering why not use a simple rod as in some uprights for the string > cross over instead of a cast iron capo bar with all the vaguries involved? > The rod would offer an exact diameter and precise hardness since it would > be added on in the manufactoring process. ---ric > Why not, indeed? Actually, several grand manufacturers have done this as well. Yamaha, for one. And several old lesser-known U.S. makers that don't come to mind just now. There are a variety of other ways of accomplishing a good front string termination. In addition to the Baldwin termination piece mentioned by Roger (which only fails because of its too-shallow string deflection angles). The original Walter design had a separate manganese bronze casting pinned to a flat surface under the capo tastro bar. These bronzes have an extremely high tensile strength and hardness (compared to grey iron) and still have good lubricity characteristics. Some Sohmer's used an adjustable steel plate with a carefully milled string contact surface bolted to the front of a more-or-less standard cast capo tastro bar. It had the two advantages of being quite hard--whatever was the hardness of the steel used--and being adjustable for string height. Nice looking, as well. Another good technique is the inverted half-agraffe as used by early Chickerings along with a few--again, lesser-known--others. We also used this technique in the Fandrich Vertical. It's an excellent system combining good string termination with precise string alignment. The only reasons I can think of for not using one of the above is that they did not become traditional. That is, S&S did not use them. Any one of them would be an improvement over the system that has become traditional through the past century or so. Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC