<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Calin said: "<FONT face="Times New =
Roman" size=3>In
that case, I =<BR>would say preserving as much of the original =
substance as
possible is =<BR>the priority. You don't want to turn it into a modern =
piano,
but make it =<BR>sound the was it was supposed to in the
1850's."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Calin,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>First I would
have to take MAJOR exception with your comment, in your previous post, =
that
Americans don't have respect for Tradition! Many do not, but a large =
percentage
of Technicians, that I've met and talked with, DO! I for one have such
"Respect". However, in this post you say it will sound like it did when =
it was
built, ONLY if you use the original sound board. To that I say
B.S.!</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>I just finished
a complete Restoration of an 1867 Chickering, 8', flat strung Grand. If =
I had
used the original board, it would have sounded like =
crap!!!</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>Although, I'm
sure, that originally the piano sounded as it does now, with a new board =
and
judicious scale improvements that HAVE to be done, as our current supply =
of bass
string supplies do not allow an "exact" replacement. Also, If I'm going =
to go to
all that trouble, why the hell would I want to put the "assembly line" =
screw ups
back in the piano? The end result, I am sure, for the Chickering is a =
slightly
improved end result than the original, but not to the point of =
destroying the
essence of what the original intent/sound was. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>This same
thinking is now prevelant regarding the "restoration" of Steinways. It's =
crap
and Steinway knows it, but they persist with this: "if it doesn't have =
all
original Steinway parts than it isn't a Steinway" garbage. I'm old =
enough to
know what a new steinway sounded like when it was new, back 4 decades. =
It sure
as hell didn't sound like the #%%^^* CRAP that is touted as the =
"Heritage" line
they espouse to!</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>Too often
Technicians think that the original maker knew what he was doing and =
achieved
his end goal, on every piano he manufactured! =
Hogwash!</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>If the board is
shot, in terms of the cellular structure of the wood, it's SHOT! It =
needs to be
replaced. Whether a tech chooses to do it the way the original maker =
did, OR
make the end product capable of lasting Longer and sounding Better, than =
the
original, than so be it. I, for one, chose to TRY to maintain the =
original
INTENT of the maker, if that is possible, but I sure as hell am not =
going to
waste my time REPRODUCING mistakes and crap!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe Garrett, R.P.T.<BR>Captain, Tool
Police<BR>Squares R I</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>