Hammer re-facing and blow distance

[Annie Grieshop]

David, are these pianos on which you've been working through the years?
Have they had at least some basic maintenance all along?  I find that can
make a huge difference in what else the need when the hammers are refaced.

As part of my Maintain It! campaign, I offer my customers a package deal on
refacing and basic regulation.  I shape the hammers and set the blow
distance, lost motion, let off, and checking.  That 3-4 hour job (on an
upright) can make a world of difference in the piano.

My package price is pretty low for what they're getting, but it's about as
high as the market will bear here (and I'm still making more than my normal
hourly charge for the time required).  Other "stuff" that needs fixing is
extra.

Of course, I'm just coming into a new area, where the services of a
technician have been lacking for a while.  (It's a great opportunity to talk
with customers about the difference between a "tuner" and a
"technician"....)  So nearly every piano I've worked on has needed technical
work, as well as tuning.

Customers are happy with the improved sound and playability, their pianos
are back to a state approximating correct operation, my work will be more
pleasant next time I tune that piano, and I've added to my coffers.  And
since I love doing that kind of fiddley work, it's fun, as well.

Annie Grieshop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Boyce [mailto:David at piano.plus.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:02 AM
> To: Pianotech List
> Subject: Hammer re-facing and blow distance
>
>
> Yesterday I did a hammer re-facing on a client's 1929 Challen upright.
>
> Hammer re-facing is a job I enjoy doing.  I take care to keep a proper
> shape, and it never seems all that difficult to me, yet I have seen some
> horrible jobs. Recently I saw a piano where the hammers were all
> lop-sided
> because someone had done a very crude re-facing by filing (with I
> know not
> what implement, the hammer felt looked all roughed-up) from the top side
> only, towards and over the striking face. The hammer bottoms had not been
> touched.
>
> I was musing about the conventional wisdom which says that after
> re-facing,
> the blow distance should be adjusted by packing felt behind the
> hammer rest
> rail, and the action re-regulated.  In practice I have seldom done this
> after re-facing.  There is the practical consideration of what
> the customer
> would be willing to pay, balanced with the very substantial
> improvement to
> an old piano that can be made just by re-facing.
>
> What I was thinking, is this: If you re-face carefully, you don't
> increase
> the blow distance beyond what it already is, because you only file the
> hammers to the level of the bottom of the exisiting grooves. The existing
> blow distance is from the bottom of the grooves to the strings.  If the
> action is reasonably good at that distance, and it's not a
> top-grade piano
> or a customer with lots of money, is it necessary to mess with
> packing the
> rest rail etc?  A fairly quick hammer re-facing, along with
> tightening all
> flange screws and taking up lost morion, can make a huge
> difference to the
> sound and feel of a semi-decent old upright, at reasonable cost.
>
> And in any case, adjusting the blow distance to what it originally might
> have been, does not restore the piano to what it was, as it now
> has smaller
> hammers and an altered action geometry.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David.
>
>