<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Makes total sense Del, thanks for that. It's not as if there wasn't plenty of space available on the pinblock, to have had half the bichord tuning pins a little further over. It would make perfect sense if on the original pattern, they were!  Unless someone had a theoretical bee in his bonnet about keeping the string straight as it went through the agraffe. But having the tuning pin further over by a millimeter would not introduce much of a bend at the agraffe hole. As Jurgen pointed out though, here we are in 2012 with the piano still going (reasonably) strong. So, by no means a disater, in the end! Best regards, David. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.davidboyce.co.uk">www.davidboyce.co.uk</a> <blockquote type="cite">From a design perspective it is not OK to have a string resting against the coil of a neighboring string. But this may not have started out as a design issue. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>These holes would have been indexed in one of two ways: either “dimples” were located in the original frame pattern or they were drilled using a drilling template of some sort. In either case errors were common over a production run. Pattern repairs were made by patternmakers whose knowledge of the overall piano was probably limited. He would have little knowledge (or concern) over a row of dimples moving a millimeter one way or another. And that’s all it would take to produce this error. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>Or the worker who made the drilling template could well have made it slightly out of spec. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>In either case the problem would not discovered until this piano, and a few dozen (or a few hundred) others, were well into production. And then it would take some while and a lot more work for the problem to get fixed.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>ddf </blockquote> </body> </html>