<html><head><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">As long as the agraffe design will still allow a good stike point in the high treble. On some pianos, the agraffe does not allow the hammer to strike close enough to the termination, which can lead to some extra woody noise up there.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">Dave Davis, RPT<BR><BR></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net><BR>To: Pianotech List <pianotech@ptg.org><BR>Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:55:50 AM<BR>Subject: Re: Agraffes in uprights<BR><BR> <DIV>> Recently, I have been getting more pressure from the marketing folks to <BR>> design upright models with agraffes, preferably all the way up to #88.  <BR>> What do  you folks think about that?<BR>>  <BR>> Frank Emerson<BR><BR>As a marketing tool, sure. It looks good listed in the <BR>brochures with bass string length and soundboard area. The <BR>piano can then be sold for a price difference greater than the <BR>cost of agraffe installation, albeit in lesser quantity <BR>because of the higher price. From a practical standpoint, <BR>they'll maintain string spacing if the tuning pin field is <BR>poorly laid out. Kimball comes immediately to mind here. <BR>Otherwise, I'm not convinced there is a real performance <BR>benefit to agraffes over the conventional V mound and pressure <BR>bar.<BR><BR>You?<BR><BR>Ron N</DIV></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR></DIV></div></body></html>