Touchweight Question

[Bill Ballard]

At 9:39 PM -0500 1/5/03, Farrell wrote:
>BUT magic lines are all out of whack (capstan is way high, and 
>knuckle contact is way low), and bass keys have six leads in them 
>(YES, THAT'S RIGHT, SIX LEADS IN EACH KEY!!!!). I know something has 
>got to change here. I'm ready to go fishin' with new parts. Any 
>great suggestions on where to start? (Constructive, please.)

Terry, what are your string heights here? I'll bet you the extra 
height in your capstans corresponds to extra string height, a common 
feature of 19th century grands. Check to see whether that string 
elevations have exceeded what upper limits Del may have told you on 
this.

No sure way around this one. Like the tenor bridge in a Steinway A1, 
you're stuck with that string height. Unless you want to mill a 1/2" 
off the cheeks of the rim, as a way of reducing the string height. Oh 
yes, and the fall board as well.

You're stuck with an action mounted a standard distance down from the 
string plan, but sitting on a keybed 1/2" lower than normal from the 
string plane. (Actually, it is the string plane which is set high.) 
The more the action geometry is extended vertically, the more the 
rotation yields horizontal sliding friction motion. Not a great idea, 
but a legacy.

At 8:45 AM -0500 1/5/03, Farrell wrote:
>"...such a piano, whose rebuilding right now seems based on faith in 
>its as a good candidate for rebuilding."
>
>Just curious, what do you mean by the above statement? Faith in what?

Faith in the final, thus far unseen result. But that's not saying 
very much actually. All of our rebuilds get done on this faith, 
simply on the basis that the particular pianos deserve this kind of 
work (ie. will return musical rewards), and also that we can 
successfully do the work. The second assumption is a no-brainer for 
us rebuild-hardened piano techs. As for the first, it helps to have a 
gold-plate name like Steinway, but barring that, a piano of a certain 
quality of design, construction and materials, in reasonable 
(rebuildable) condition for all of its decades. Which is what you and 
your clients are doing.

So in this process the decision surfaces, about whether to 
reincarnate the keyboard to run on standard keypins. It's a jump in 
expense, and more to the point, the extent to which they pour money 
into this piano, which they've selected for this work, based not 
because of its "immortal name" but because of its own inherent 
strengths. It is a matter of faith, as I said above involving two 
assumptions.

The question I was aiming at (although not voicing) was, would new 
key buttons, balance holes, and front mortises (on standard pins) be 
a less intimidating decision for the owners, if the piano also had an 
immortal name? This a matter of budget policy, ie., how "hole-hog" do 
we go on a piano, which if we need to sell it, would not have the 
immortal name on top of its own musical qualities to convince people.

You've got plenty of good suggestion for sticking with the original 
pins and mortises. My point is now moot.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"
     ...........Steve Martin
+++++++++++++++++++++