<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Larry,<br>
<br>
Some clarification is needed. I believe current design is shorter
than their previous long-time traditional design. Are these
backchecks even shorter than the new short design? And, what
exactly needs to be improved? Is it that the buckskin is
seriously worn?<br>
<br>
In my experience, the short checks are as good as the long checks,
with the advantage that they are less likely to interfere with the
sostenuto blade. Recover vs replace is a personal decision; I
prefer replacement. Steinway backcheck wires are splined at both
ends, not threaded.<br>
<br>
hope this helps<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 9/10/2012 11:11 AM, Larry Fisher RPT wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5DC972DFEDAB48BF93DFFD3A9BD740A0@LarryPC"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE:
12pt">
<div>Old Steinway grand.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>These back checks are shorter than current designs. I’m
curious to know what’s the best way to “improve” these back
checks ....... recover or replace.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>They don’t seem to screw on and I haven’t whacked one
with a chisel yet, separating it from the wire, to see
what’s inside them. I’ve also considered using my drill
press as a back check extractor and installer.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I’d appreciate the sharing of our collective vast
knowledge base on this project and thank you in advance.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lar</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>