<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Hi, David,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've inspected a bunch of these in my early Steinway grand research, and rebuilt one myself.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The exposed block is what's nice about the early 7'2" "Style II" (many 7'2"s were "Style 1" before 1872). Ed Foote refers to the pinblock tipping, and some I've found are so tight the action can't be easily removed; others are original and still fine! I used a cold roll steel bar between the two front stretcher/pinblock bolts, FWIW. Fit of pinblock to plate at the flange is critical too. There is very little horizontal plate support, only a little at the flange; no struts or webbing whatever.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Action conversions were often done by the factory at a later date. Capstan use began in 1875 by Steinway and many actions were converted - often the entire wood frame and in some cases non-Erard action was replaced - this was done earlier too, before capstans. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've found large amounts of lead too; many times it's obviously installed later, but Steinway was struggling with geometry; the keystick ratio varied from 62% to 70%, and didn't begin to approach the 2-1 ratio until 1880 (from what I've measured so far). Steinway's key front weight was pretty high on actions during this period. So one of the biggest challenges is getting the action to play without feeling like it has too much inertia. Theodore clearly struggled with it because he came up with such a uniquely designed action to solve this problem in the 1871. Though most of these have also been replaced with the modern repetition action by the factory, one exists in the 1872 6'8" in the William Seward House in Auburn NY; this piano has at most two leads in the bass, mostly only one lead per key, and it has a "balance spring." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Once you have had a good look at these early actions you begin to understand how poor Anton Rubenstein might have felt at the end of his long American concert tour in the early 1870s. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do an all-day seminar on the early Steinway grand and would be happy to accept an invitation to your chapter if arrangements could be made. I give the two-class version at the CA State Conference this February 8-11 also.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bill Shull</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In a message dated 1/17/2007 3:00:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, davidskolnik@optonline.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>Greetings -<BR>Ideally I'd like to hear from those who have had a good deal of experience rebuilding these pianos, but I'd welcome any useful observations. The particular type in question is an 85 note, 3/4 plate (exposed block, angled face), overstrung, agraffes to note 85, originally rocker action converted to capstan. <BR><BR>Given that it is an exposed block, do you alter your target tuning pin torque from what it would be in a full plate block?<BR><BR>What are the tonal limitations of the upper treble of this type (no capo d'astro bar)? How far could you / would you go to address these limitations? This would probably best be addressed to those who are doing innovative installations. Are there inherent limitations in this design that would limit the effectiveness of these modifications?<BR><BR>Were these keyboards originally heavily weighted? I've seen one which starts with about 10 (ten) 7/16" leads in A<FONT size=1>0</FONT>. On first glance (un-disassembled) they look original.<BR><BR>Thanks <BR><BR>David Skolnik</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>