Varying bridge height (27 Mar 2002) (was Re: Floating soundboard)

[Ron Nossaman]

>About Mehlin grands that have the soundboards sloping downward toward
>the understrung-tenor side of tail, sometimes cut out beyond the
>last rib, and having the long bridge increase in height
>substantially from the treble end to the understrung end.
>
>I have one, a 5 ft. 4" from ca. 1923, and share the sentiment that,
>"Someone surely had a plan, and I'd love to know the details."

Hi Randy,
I would too. I've come to suspect that the cutout at the low end of the 
treble bridge was a simple post-design expedient to get some flexibility 
back into what proved to be too stiff a soundboard assembly after building 
it, without having to go back to the drawing board and re-tool for another 
guess. I think it was easier to just keep cutting out the hole on each one 
(since that apparently did the trick), than to start over. As for the 
soundboard angle and bridge heights - I haven't a clue. I can't see that it 
did anything special enough to have been worth the trouble, so I have no 
idea what the intent was. There are a lot of long gone piano designers, and 
a few current ones, that I'd love to spend a day with discussing these 
things.


>I certainly don't hold that Mehlin, or any other single maker, worked
>out "enough of the answers" to the problem of producing a reasonably
>affordable home or studio grand piano (answering to certain of the
>tonal ideals of its time and place), so that it would be worthwhile
>for a present maker, interested in those same ideals, to emulate those
>designs and methods as a whole, although a practical piano can only
>turn out well as the result of the whole of its own maker's efforts.
>But it seems to me to be very likely that unless real examples of the
>efforts of the literally dozens of imaginative and musically interested
>makers from (say) the period 1850-1930 survive, to be studied, and where
>possible, brought to playing condition again, the future of the
>instrument will be the poorer for it.  Thus it seems encouraging to see
>practicing rebuilders and practicing makers actually talking to each other
>about common problems.  Could these "communications" perhaps be the kernel
>for programmatic efforts?

That's the idea. We have a number of remarkably innovative examples of past 
efforts from which, with our own independent efforts, and insights to try 
to determine how these things work and why. If we can distill what's right 
about a number of designs from what's wrong in these same designs, we can 
learn to dependably produce the best of the best, or at least have a 
reasonable idea what we're giving up with our compromises.


>Specifically about the Mehlins:  One of the "names" that doesn't bring up
>anything substantive in the pianotech website archive is the Mehlin
>"Endwood" bridge.  I've speculated about it, of course, without having
>found the patent or other description.  Any leads, good information, or
>wild guesses?
>
>Randy Jacob

Sorry, I don't think I've ever heard of it until now. You can't always 
identify the feature in the piano from the marketing term though, so it 
could be anything - or nothing.

Ron N