<HTML>In a message dated 12/5/2002 2:41:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, sec@overspianos.com.au writes:         Dale <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Other contributing factors would be wide cases/board of Mason and Hamlins</BLOCKQUOTE> Ron What do you mean by wide cases/board ? <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">  Dale</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>            And good scales (mostly)                   Ron Overs              Hey Ron            Came up for breath did You?  What I meant was that the Mason cases are wider from the spine over to the curve Does that make a sense? Not a narrow body like an early Stwy from the 1880s. It's Fat as the kids say here. So the boards have more square inches than some longer pianos and the bridges therefore are more in the center of the board which would be the most flexible area.    I now own a Double A 6 ft 1inch  or so from 1950 with the original compression crowned board that sounds glorious. I ran the numbers for the string scale and it was very even tension  in the 150's lb.. It has five wrapped strings on the end of the tenor bridge. I know all the bad press this arrangement has gotten but I've not heard cleaner cross overs ever. The sound is gloriously unbeleivable. 12 seconds of sustain ant c-6 about 15 or more at note 55 thru 60 My sister bought its twin only 1 serial no. apart and just as gloroius. The factory should make this piano again. The rim is as thick as the Stwy D in the back room Thanks for the post I appreciate the feedback.     Regards        Dale Erwin</HTML>