<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> I suppose one of the reasons cedar was used for shanks in older pianos was for a question of weight ?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Pierre<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Message d'origine----- De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] De la part de John Delacour Envoyé : dimanche 20 août 2006 0:38 À : <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Pianotech List</st1:PersonName> Objet : Re: Brash Failure / cedar shanks <o:p> </o:p> At 4:13 pm -0500 19/8/06, Ron Nossaman wrote:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >At 9:00 pm +0100 19/8/06, alan forsyth wrote:<o:p></o:p> ><o:p> </o:p> >>The worst case of this I have come across is Rud Ibach pianos of <o:p></o:p> >>100 year old vintage and also an 1870 Broadwood. In these cases the <o:p></o:p> >>actions were made from Cedar. Drill into the wood and it just <o:p></o:p> >>crumbles to dust. Something I noticed as well is that the wood <o:p></o:p> >>emitted a very strong coffee type smell.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >I've run into this with cedar too, usually shanks. Why would they <o:p></o:p> >use cedar for shanks in the first place? Or is it really cedar, and <o:p></o:p> >not chestnut? Chestnut, I think, would have been both more abundant, <o:p></o:p> >and a better choice.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cedar shanks are common on early pianos and it certainly is cedar, <o:p></o:p> very easily distinguished from anything like chestnut. Its the same <o:p></o:p> stuff the best old pencils were made from, fragrant, a pinkish red <o:p></o:p> and very light (0.38 g/cc). For some reason cedar does seem <o:p></o:p> particularly prone to this sort of deterioration and even when it's <o:p></o:p> perfect it has not the strength and elasticity needed in the modern <o:p></o:p> piano. Some makers continued using it far too long whereas others <o:p></o:p> switched quite early to rock maple, hornbeam, hickory etc. There is <o:p></o:p> a very fine dark brown wood a few makers used in the last 30 yrs or <o:p></o:p> so of the 1800s, which I've never been able to identify. I have 3 <o:p></o:p> uprights that have shanks made of this wood and they are perfect, but <o:p></o:p> a colleague is about to send me a set of hammers for shank <o:p></o:p> replacement because this same wood has become brittle for some reason.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I recognize well the unpleasant smell Alan refers to, which is <o:p></o:p> something like the characteristic smell of the older Bechsteins, <o:p></o:p> which again I have never had anyone identify. And talking of <o:p></o:p> Bechsteins, even the hornbeam of some of their earlier piano actions <o:p></o:p> can become impossibly brittle even in our climate, with enough help <o:p></o:p> from factory chimneys and smoking coal fires.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> JD<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>