<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>While they perform similar functions the two bridge pieces are of quite different design. There were two basic problems with the Sohmer implementation of this idea. First, the tension of the strings put a constant twisting force on the agrafe that ultimately either twisted the bridge/soundboard panel or split the bridge. Second, this tendency to either twist or split was exacerbated by some of the highest string tensions ever seen in a modern piano. One that I rebuilt had string tensions measuring over 250 lbf (yes, that is per individual string) through much of the tenor and lower treble section. That’s enough to destroy any piano.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>By contrast the type of bridge termination device used by Stuart, et al do not put any twisting force on the bridge. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Delwin D Fandrich<o:p></o:p>Piano Design & Fabrication<o:p></o:p>6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA<o:p></o:p>Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell  360.388.6525<o:p></o:p><a href="mailto:del@fandrichpiano.com">del@fandrichpiano.com </a>— <a href="mailto:ddfandrich@gmail.com">ddfandrich@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Euphonious Thumpe Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 3:04 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] 102 keys and 4 pedals???<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624 style='width:468.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'><tr><td valign=top style='padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm'><div>While I'm sure it's a great piano (and I'd surely like to play one!) it is interesting to note that the 2 "innovations" that are seemed to be claimed as original are the bridge agraffe (which we've all just deeply discussed) and a lifting hammer rail, as was used on reproducing pianos a century ago. But it would definitely be interesting to see if the bridge agraffe design on the Stuart overcomes the issues that Sohmer et al suffered with their versions last century. (I hope it works and creates no problems.) Other than that, all I can say is that the text is in dire need of a copy editor! When attempting to market what is surely an extremely "high-end" product, it is far more convincing when the advertising material is bereft of spelling and word use "goofs"! (I found several.) Thumpe<o:p></o:p></div></td></tr></table><div id="_origMsg_"><div><o:p> </o:p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:center'><hr size=1 width="100%" align=center></div>From: Jason Kanter <<a href="mailto:jkanter@rollingball.com">jkanter@rollingball.com</a>>; To: Pianotech <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>>; Subject: [pianotech] 102 keys and 4 pedals??? Sent: Sat, Nov 3, 2012 5:14:26 AM <o:p></o:p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624 style='width:468.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'><tr><td valign=top style='padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm'><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/grand-design-resonates-with-young-musicians-20121102-28ppk.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/grand-design-resonates-with-young-musicians-20121102-28ppk.html</a><o:p></o:p><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Any of you Ozzies familiar with this Stuart & Sons piano?<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Jason Kanter <o:p></o:p></div> -- <o:p></o:p>| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||<o:p></o:p>jason's cell 425 830 1561<o:p></o:p></td></tr></table><o:p> </o:p></div></div></div></div></body></html>