<html> Hi Stan,<br>              After the 18C weather we have been having this morning was a shock to the system -5C Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.<br> <br> Assuming the bore distance and rake is correct a 4" arced tail works on most pianos and takes care of the tail length. <br> If the hammer can be set to check 5/8" from the string and be in contact with the check about 1/8" below the top of the wooden part of the check you will be very close to being right, for the back check height.<br> Many manufacturers are all over the map in setting height.<br> <br> Regards Roger<br> <br> <br> At 11:32 AM 18/11/99 -0600, you wrote: <br> <blockquote type=cite cite>Greetings from the rapidly chilling Canadian prairie!<br> <br> In the past year, I have encountered at least half a dozen 'name-brand' grand pianos that had replacement hammers installed.  No tapering, tailing, coving and downweights consequently measured in the 75 - 95 gram range.  These were O.E.M. parts with the correct model name stamped on hammer no. 1.  Peculiar thing is that we had some of the original hammers (on shanks) which had much less felt mass and shorter moldings and when samples were re-installed, touchweight measurements were in the acceptable range.<br> <br> I am preparing to reduce hammer weight by the usual methods but feel the tails could be shortened by as much as 1/4".  However, I believe this must be done with due consideration to the action geometry(?)  I understand that at point of letoff, the end of the hammer tail should be about 1/16" above the top end of the backcheck, but on these pianos it could be a chicken/egg scenario.  What if the backchecks are incorrectly installed?<br> <br> What is the correct relationship of hammer tail length to, say, hammer flange center height or any other fixed reference point?<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Stan Kroeker <br> Registered Piano Technician </blockquote><br> <br> <div>Roger Jolly</div> <div>Saskatoon, Canada.</div> <div>306-665-0213</div> Fax 652-0505 </html>