<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Just to add some numbers to this, I just measured the strike weight of
some of the old hammers on my old Chickering . Turns out strike weigth
was ~9.3gm in the bass, around 7 gm in the middle, and about 5-6
gm at the top. These numbers are all pretty low and account for the
difficulty I am having with the new set - which I have yet to measure.
(They are "Pacific Gold" hammers - recommended by the fellow at the parts
house who I talked to as a good quality hammer. To my
ear they produce a nice full sound.) Now I just have to solve the
"touch weight disaster" thats come from putting these hammers on my old
piano!
<p>Thanks to all who have posted responces to my original inquiry.
<p>Gary Rondeau
<br>
<br>
<p>David Stanwood wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Major issue here... should we reproduce what was
original or "Improve"
<br>on it based on evolved knowledge? I'm sure that my tuning mentor
Bill
<br>Garlick would choose the former. Based on what I've learned in
the field of
<br>Touch Weight Metrology I can't help but go for the broader dynamic
range and
<br>fuller tone that I know comes from from hammers that are in the High
mid to
<br>high zone. These hammer weights usually create disaster in regards
to touch
<br>weight when applied to old pianos.
<br>I also know that with expertise that any action may be configured to
handle
<br>higher weight hammers. The result usually unleashes a suprizing
amount of
<br>tone potential so I would put myself in the latter catagory... I choose
to
<br>"Improve". Hammer weights have evolved upwards for good reasons.
Either
<br>choice is valid if it serves the need of the piano owner.
<p>David Stanwood
<p>>From: "Erwinpiano" <Erwinpiano@email.msn.com>
<br>>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
<br>>To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
<br>>Subject: Re: Chickering rebuild -- touchweight.
<br>>Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:24:28 -0800
<br>>
<br>>Hi Brian
<br>> I believe there might be one major step and oversight
that I ,Yourself
<br>>and
<br>>many others have made at the beginning of any chickering action
rebuild
<br>>And
<br>>that is to weigh the original hammers and get over the shock of how
<br>>incredibly light they are. And then after checking your gram
scale a time
<br>>or two for accuuacy it is realized it was right . The hmmrs.
had to be
<br>>light for the leverages that were chosen and when the're set up as
designed
<br>>they work well and if not well you're expieriencing that tooo heavy
feel .
<br>>If you can't get the hammer wt. down a slight change in the knuckle
<br>>placement will get you there but will change the reg. requirements
<br>>slightly.
<br>>I have used the ronsen 14 lb. saepele molding and taperes as Newton
<br>>suggested from strike pt. to tail and also recove or cove to
reduce wt.
<br>>further.
<br>> Your current options are
as stated ( reducing wt.if possible) or
<br>>starting over uugghhh
<br>> Good Luck Dale
Erwin
<br>>
<br>>
<br><a href="http://explorer.msn.com"></a> </blockquote>
</html>