Wippen centers won't often "click" as there isn't enough movement or stress on that part for that particular problem to develop. That being said, I do prefer to change Teflon wippens when replacing the shanks. I find the overall performance of Renner parts so much superior to the older Teflon wippens or even the new NY "improved" parts that I prefer to keep things matched and mated. Often there are subtle differences in alignment characteristics between two different parts and when given the choice, I prefer to change everything. If leather or cushion felt is hardened and/or if pinning in the flanges is uneven or loose, the time spent changing everything versus a new part installed is not large enough in the whole scope of the job to justify keeping them. At least that's my view. That being said, there are cases where I've kept the old Teflon wippens when cost was really at issue and/or perhaps in an institutional setting where subtle performance differences would not be important. David Love davidlovepianos at comcast.net www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Greg Newell Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 7:50 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: 1939 Steinway wippens David, Is it also your opinion to replace all parts on a teflon action? The hammers and knuckles are worn but the wippens seem good. There are no clicks in the action at all. I would have to replace the drop screw buckskin though. All the buckskin is lousy in this action. I'll be replacing shanks and flanges with hammers so that takes care of the knuckle. I'll also replace the backchecks but it seems like I could get away with only the buckskin piece on the wippen. What say you? appreciatively, Greg Newell David Love wrote: > Mismatched parts can create some performance problems so changing both at > the same time is advised. Also, if you put on a new hammer which is likely > to be heavier than the old one, the old and lightweight repetition springs > can have problems lifting the new weight. With a new hammer that is heavier > you will likely have to use a different knuckle position on the new shanks. > Possibly you will need to go all the way to 17 mm placing those on a wippen > designed for 15.5 mm. > > Best in this case to do the entire job with Renner parts and hammers of your > choice: hammers, shanks, wippens, let off buttons, back checks, key frame > felt, balance rail punchings (unless it's an accelerated action), front rail > punchings, bushings, key end felt, precision balance the action Stanwood > style. It might inspire them to do the rest of the piano and if they do > they won't have a half done action to go with it. If you pick the right > hammer, they'll love you forever. > > David Love > davidlovepianos at comcast.net > www.davidlovepianos.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf > Of Cal Munson > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:25 PM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: 1939 Steinway wippens > > > I am going to be replacing the hammers and shanks on a 1939 Steinway > 'S' and possibly the wippens too. All parts are original. > Vertigris is quite evident in the hammer flanges and they are very > stiff. The wippens appear much less affected though I did not have > the time to do a thorough inspection. I assume that these will > eventually develop a vertigris problem as well and am looking for > some confirmation that I can pass along to my customer. > > Thanks for your responses to my previous post on hammer bore > distance. Though the hammers in question have been on the shelf now > for 3 years , Alice at Renner could not have been more attentive and > willing to do what she could to help out . > > > Cal Munson > > > > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC