D

[David Love]

My guess is that they used original dimension parts, i.e. 15.5 mm knuckle
placement.  I have seen this done frequently from a reputable rebuilder out
of New York.  That is not likely to work with newer heavy hammers that
probably out weigh the old ones by 2-3 grams and duplicate an action ratio
of 6.0 or higher.  Measure the knuckle dimension.  You may be able to
address the problem by cutting the knuckle off, cutting a new slot in the
17mm position and gluing in a new knuckle.  A thorough measurement of the
action ration would be helpful.  If the capstan is already forward to the
edge of the rest cushion then moving the capstan can be problematic. 
Moreover, a 15.5 knuckle mounting with newer heavier hammers is likely to
push friction readings higher than is desirable.  You don't necessarily
need to start over completely, but some changes are in order.  If you want
to be more precise, you will have to rehang the hammers on proper shanks. 
That will also give you the opportunity to taper the hammers and adjust the
weight to match the new ratio you will be creating.   I would tell the
customer exactly what you have found and the remedy should they want to
undertake correcting the problem.  Don't make the problem yours.  Present
the information and the options and let them make the decision.

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Kent Swafford <kswafford@earthlink.net>
> To: College Technicians <caut@ptg.org>
> Date: 9/5/2003 6:00:33 PM
> Subject: D
>
> The local junior college has the finest concert hall in the area. Their 
> house piano has been an SD-10 that they picked up cheap when the hall 
> was opened. They have known that they needed a D, and last year they 
> finally got one, a 30 year old rebuilt one. It was rebuilt by a known 
> company in NY. It has been in place perhaps 9 months, and played in 
> public 4 times. That sounds like they might be aware that there is a 
> problem with the instrument, but to hear them tell it, it is simply 
> that the final prep wasn't done after delivery as promised because the 
> tech who would have done that wasn't traveling in the wake of 9-11.
>
> Anyway, I was called out to see the piano.
>
> Downweight measured 75 grams, + or -.
>
> I found jiffy leads, attached to the underside of many of the keys, 
> _behind_ the balance rail. I removed them, thinking that I was about to 
> find the reason that they were added in the first place. I still 
> haven't a clue. Maybe the rebuilder didn't either...  (Anybody care to 
> speculate on why they were put there?)
>
> Downweight now measures 65 grams, + or -.
>
> The action parts appeared to be Renner, with real Steinway hammers, but 
> the wips do not have screw-adjustable rep springs, so the parts 
> couldn't be very new(?) Maybe the rebuild wasn't all that recent and 
> the piano hadn't sold(?)
>
> The back action had been replaced with a Renner kit, but with dampers 
> only going up to E6, not up to G6 that is normal in Ds.
>
> Most of the capstans were off the edge of the capstan felt, some 
> grossly so, so the action is not aligned properly.
>
> I have improved the spacing of the wips in relation to the capstans, 
> and re-timed the dampers to lift properly (they were lifting too early, 
> contributing to the heavy action), and have done normal friction 
> reduction.
>
> Now the piano is at least playable. Before, the piano wouldn't really 
> play above mezzo-piano. Now there is at least a forte.
>
> The question, of course, is, "What do I tell the customer?"
>
> The action really needs to start over, with proper geometry, and the 
> proper number of dampers, but...
>
> the piano could probably get by with just some weight reduction in the 
> action/hammers.
>
> The stringing and refinish appear to be pretty darn good. The action, 
> however, is a mess.
> 3 less dampers than other Ds?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks for letting me think "out loud".
>
> Kent Swafford
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives