[pianotech] Knabe

[Joseph Garrett]

Oops! I did the same thing as you Dave! You jinxed me.<G> 
First, do you have any idea when Overstrung pianos were begun? I don't, but
there were some of that age, I can say that. So, first assumption is
flawed.<G> Piano manufacturers were using all sorts of wood, OTHER than
rosewood. A lot of Mahogany was used.<G> Second assumption in the
terlet.<G> I was zeroing in on the leg/lyre configuration. That is of that
period. However, there were many, including Knabe, that did "reproduction"
case styles in the 20th century, so finding the serial number and availing
of the Atlas, would be the right way to go, I suppose.<G> As for the
425cps? I did my research.<G> Try "On the Sensations of Tone, Helholz. In
the back is a whole study that was done for each country's various venues,
etc. Hmmm? It just occured to me that that pitch is best for British
Instruments. Of course, I averaged the numbers, so that I would have
something useable. I've used that pitch with good success on the really
olde stuff.. Hope that answers your questions.
Best,
Joe


> [Original Message]
> From: Dave Doremus <algiers_piano at bellsouth.net>
> To: joegarrett at earthlink.net <joegarrett at earthlink.net>;
pianotech at ptg.org <pianotech at ptg.org>
> Date: 11/21/2012 11:38:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Knabe
>
> Well, I think I replied unsuccessfully, so let me try again. Joe, from
the picture it looks over strung so not as old as you suggest. And at that
age wouldnt it more likely be rosewood? The case looks like a fancy version
of what was common in Fischers and some of the early 20th C players. I'd
suspect it's ok at 440. BTW, how do you come up with 425 as an accepted
pitch? Just curious, not criticizing.   
>
>
> ---Dave
> New Orleans
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2012, at 12:53 PM, "Joseph Garrett" <joegarrett at earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> > 
> > 
> > Laura,
> > Maybe.<G> First of all, I'd simply call that an Early European
Constructed
> > Piano. It has a slightly "bent" area of the rim in the middle
section,but
> > all else is "jointed" to get the "shape".<G> It does appear to be pretty
> > stout, so, I don't think I'd be too concerned with the structure being
> > weak. However, I'd date that one in the 1855's - 1865's