<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Mike and Ron and Vince   Thank you for your replies.   I don’t know the history of the piano and am not sure if it was every used/tuned enough to break strings. It could have been below pitch when I got it, I don’t have any record of the original pitch. (That’s the problem of starting a piano and seven years later trying to pick up where one left off.) When it was unstrung, there was no sign of string replacements.   I measured the strings again and added the wrapped strings to the chart. Notes 23 – 28 are wrapped doubles on the Treble bridge, 22 – 11 are doubles on the bass bridge, and 10-1 are singles. The bass bridge has quite a curve for the higher notes, and there is no bridge notching, so the doubles are consistently about 1/16 of an inch different in length. The doubles on the treble bridge are notched to be the same length. The bass strings were sent to Schaff to be when the piano was originally unstrung.   Doing a visual comparison of this piano to a Steinway M, it is quite obvious that the bridge veers away from the capo much sooner and much more drastically in the Gabler, (taking into consideration the fact that the Steinway is a larger instrument.) This agrees with what you saw in the figures, Mike. It looks like the Gabler was designed with the idea of getting as much string length as possible into as small an instrument as possible. I will try to get a photo so others can compare what a poorly designed scale looks like. Once I saw what to look for, it was quite obvious.   The scaling of the Gabler also places the lower end of the treble bridge just 4 1/4 inches from the case, 1 inch closer than the bass bridge apron mount. My guess is that there would be a “pinching” of the sound in the low treble as the end of the bridge gets clamped by the rim (or am I out in left field on this one?)   As far as working on it more, Ron, I see what your point is and after much thought, I think it’s time to cut the expenses and dump it. It’s was matter of weighing between having an instrument to learn on (partly for RPT) or having an instrument with my “rebuilding” name on it that may sound like garbage because of design flaws that I cannot correct. When adding in the other problems that still need to be solved, this piano is not worth the work.   One question: Measuring for the strings going under the capo seems to be a problem. Are there any tricks to getting accurate and consistent measurements when the termination is on the underside of the plate?     Thanks for the input and the insights that made the difference between this being a good learning experience and a total disaster.   Rex Roseman Roseman Piano Tuning </div> </body> </html>