1969 Steinway L CBS?

[Erwinspiano@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 5/11/2002 11:01:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com writes:


> Subj:Re: 1969 Steinway L CBS? 
> Date:5/11/2002 11:01:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com">mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
>           Terry 

    You are correct. This is a strange production quirk but think of all the 
money you'll make over a lifetime fixing those problems. Yet it's the way 
they do it. 
    Vertigris and teflon made me tons a money. Hey maybe it was planned that 
way. God Bless em.
  I think Dave Stanwoods ideas have a far wider application but probably got 
his initial boost from fighting these problems you mention. Don't you think?
     <.best>>>>>>>Dale>>>>>>>>>>>

> 
> I'm lumping 1098s and the little bit smaller consoles together.
>  
> Some. Some. Some. "...some Steinway grand pianos exhibit (verdigris, Teflon 
> action centers, poor action geometry), I have much respect for their grand 
> pianos."
> 
> My understanding is that much of that is related to the hand-fitted 
> pinblock (that is also fitted to the case) that in turn CAN cause small 
> variations in the plate location, and then when the action stack is 
> installed, it may be located too far forward or toward the rear from 
> optimal, and then of course the capstans are likewise poorly located. On 
> SOME of their grand pianos. I believe that is one of the reasons why you 
> see David Stanwood, et. al. sometimes moving capstan lines.
>  
> Terry Farrell
>   
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/81/41/33/c5/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--