<!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 6.00.2800.1476" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Calin asked: "<FONT face="Times New =
Roman"
size=3>Hi Joe!<BR><BR>I don't know exactly what you mean by clunky, =
but I they
do have a very =<BR>different touch. I think it is so because you need =
most
effort at the =<BR>beginning of the key stroke (before the beak of the =
hammer
escapes from =<BR>its hook), combined with a shallower key dip.<BR>Is =
that what
you mean?"<BR><BR> Calin,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>Those things
are most likely what I object to. My thought is that I feel every darned =
thing
the action is doing, in the key. I don't like that! Especially the =
"catch". It
is too pronounced for my taste. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>One comment
that was made, is that the Viennese action repeats faster. I totally =
disagree.
It is a simple single escapement action and does not have the rapid =
repetition
capabilities of even the Uprights, IMO.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>Anyway, I don't
like them. 18th century technology that never went beyond it's initial
development. Like a bad stink, they linger one
forever.<G></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" =
size=3>Best
Regards,</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joe Garrett, R.P.T.<BR>Captain, Tool
Police<BR>Squares R I</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>