Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.

[David Love]

I am working on a similar vintage and size Chickering.  The original knuckle 
position was 17.5 mm and the hammers were very light. Number #40 weighed 6.7 
grams.  The crown of the hammers was only .400 wide.  I am using an Abel 
shank from Brooks that has an 18mm knuckle and also has a narrow flange to 
accommodate close spacing in the treble.  Those shanks are also tapered 
through the set which helps with the weight.  I am using a Ronsen 14lb 
hammer with Mahogany moulding which I can easily get down to a weight that 
will put me right in the ballpark of the original.

David Love

>From: Gary Rondeau <grondeau@efn.org>
>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
>To: pianotech@ptg.org
>Subject: Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.
>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:50:58 -0800
>
>Dear List,
>
>I am rebuilding a 5'6", 1907 Chickering. So far I have re-bushed the
>keys, replaced the hammers with new shanks and knuckles and replaced all
>the keybed felt.  I have played on it for a year and am fairly happy
>with the results except that the touch is a bit heavy.  The balance
>weight averages about 50gm across the keyboard.  I plan to cut a little
>more weight off of the hammer tails, but there is not much more to be
>gained their. Hence, it looks like a reweighting of the keys is in
>order.  Presently, there are keyweights in the front of the keys on keys
>1-50, and behind the pivot from 50-88.  My question is this -- If I am
>going to add front weight to the entire keyboard, what should I do up in
>the treble?  Should I remove the old keyweights behind the pivot first?
>If I don't do this, it seems that the inertial weight will climb in the
>treble since there will be weights on both the front and back.  Any
>suggestions on removing keyweights and plugging or not plugging the
>holes?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gary Rondeau
>Eugene, OR
>grondeau@efn.org
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com