<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- <BR>> That's some nice looking work. Probably better than the old upright<BR>> deserved. I'm curious. Why did you go for THAT MUCH backscale. My opinion<BR>> would be that the backscale of those old monsters was long enough but the<BR>> move to a directly contacting bass bridge would be a positive one. It seems<BR>> from the picture that simply removing the cantilevered apron would still<BR>> have put the bridge in a good spot. I can't really tell but it seems that<BR>> the bridge, in its original spot, is something like 5 or 6" away from the<BR>> edge of the board. Could you share more of your thought process in making<BR>> these changes?<BR>> <BR>> Greg Newell<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> Attached are before and after of photos of a belly I did on an upright.<BR>> Fenton<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Hey Greg and Fenton. I did a similar thing with an old upright. Pic below is "before":</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="cid:002601c8837d$4d45a660$0401a8c0@DESKTOP" align=baseline border=0></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Pic below is "after" - Del Fandrich did all the design work and I built from his specs:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="cid:002701c8837d$4d45a660$0401a8c0@DESKTOP" align=baseline border=0></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>You can see that the bass bridge moved away from the hitch pins for a longer backscale and we lost the cantilever. But we also added a loose foot for the bass and very low tenor:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><IMG alt="" hspace=0 src="cid:002801c8837d$4d45a660$0401a8c0@DESKTOP" align=baseline border=0></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>I probably shouldn't speak for Del, but my understanding of his thinking with these design changes is simply that the longer backscale is beneficial, along with the cantilever chucking and the loose foot. This thing absolutely ROARS! Not only that, but the scale is so beautifully smooth, the transitions are transparent, and the treble - oh, the treble - the sustain, the clarity - suffice to say that I have been very impressed with the results.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>IMHO, this piano rivals (and really, sounds better than - but I won't go that far in public!) most any excellent six-foot grand piano.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Greg, what do you mean by "Probably better than the old upright deserved."? I presume you meant from a financial standpoint? I'd have to agree with you there. But from a musical instrument point of view, I would respectfully disagree. What if you want an absolute top-sounding piano and simply do not have the room for a decent sized grand in your 500 square foot abode? This approach here is the ticket!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Terry Farrell</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>