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 +++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC