<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=content-type content=text/html;charset=us-ascii> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2726.2500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 topMargin=0 rightMargin=3> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:40:25 +0200 Richard Brekne <<A href="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</A>= > writes:<BR>> All this because its so hard to deal with somebody saying..= . it just doesnt add up... go figure.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Richard -</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As the one who started this thread out of concern for pronounced = ridges in a new Baldwin, I feel compelled to make an observation here.  I don't = have the SLIGHTEST idea what it is you are actually aguing for or against! = From my perspective, Del and Ron have been 100% consistent with regard to their = views on CC vs. RC boards for many years now.  Put as concisely as I can, = this is my "Cliff Notes" version:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1.  Many CC boards sound great for many many years, including = those in Steinways of all eras</DIV> <DIV>2.  Many CC boards exhibit structural problems very early on, including those in Steinways of all eras</DIV> <DIV>3.  They think the odds of it sounding great longer should and = can be better.</DIV> <DIV>4.  The RC board is an alternative that they feel addresses that.</DIV> <DIV>5.  There has never been any claims that I recall regarding = superior tone of either, given healthy boards of each.</DIV> <DIV>6.  Good reasoning has been given countless times.</DIV> <DIV> <DIV>7.  There has never been any claim that <STRONG><EM>every</EM></STRONG> CC board is doomed to <STRONG><EM>early</EM></STRONG> failure</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Say goodnight, Gracie....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Mark Potter</DIV> <DIV><A href="mailto:bases-loaded@juno.com">bases-loaded@juno.com</A></= DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV></BODY></HTML>