<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; cha= rset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV> <DIV>        Hey Bill</FON= T></DIV> <DIV>   The usual concise & thorough perspectiv= e. </DIV> <DIV>  Thanks. I can relate to both perspectives & f= or my uses Johns jig is the perfect Quick way to confirm residual bearing in= his work (or mine) on his board but I think it will often tell you wha= t the other group needs to know as well & or just maybe i= n conjunction with the lowell gauge. Which I think gives some valid & us= eful information. The only way to confirm that completley is to take measure= ments on a piano one is going to restring & after the strings come off t= ry to relate them to what is the actual condition of crown ,bridge slope etc= . & then see if you were getting the whole truth. Know what I mean?= </DIV> <DIV>  I can also  confirm residual crown on a my n= ew boards with the bubble type. Usually .012 to .018. This also squares with= a conversation Nick Gravagne & I had about this very subject.</D= IV> <DIV>  Now I'll make Johns jig & compare findings &a= mp; see how they relate.</DIV> <DIV>  Regards--Dale</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue = 2px solid">At 9:27 AM -0500 2/24/04, John Hartman wrote:<= BR>>In the type of pianos I work on I have never sean a situation where <= BR>>a slight tilt to the bridge was found to be the source of a tonal <BR= >>problem. It may be a symptom but not the cause. I guess somewhere &= gt;there are pianos with serious bridge role, but expect that by the &gt= ;time this develops many other things have gone wrong as well. With a= ll due respect, John I think this discussion needs a better answer than = that. But with the great admiration and respect I have for you, I'll als= o say that from your perspective as a rebuilder, that this perspective m= ay not provide the answers. The occasion for concerning ourselves with t= he three inclinations and in particular, how the middle one (the bridget= op) may relate to the outside two is primarily one older pianos of fadin= g resonance. A rebuilder, especially one who's new soundboard installati= on greatly outnumbers his old soundboard repair, would only be looking a= t the existing board in an old piano to answer answer the question: pop = the old board out and replace it, or leave it in and repair it. G= iven that once a rebuilder's board installation are up and running (afte= r the learning curve has flattened to the point of allowing cruising spe= ed), the clear lesson is that it takes far less time to start from new, = rather than work with the old. For that reason, your position that readi= ng the three inclinations adds nothing to the decision to replace/repair= quite likely already made on the basis of gross downbearing, is underst= andable and quite reasonable. For you. However, David Skolnik and Ed = Foote (and others for whom it's important what the three inclinations ca= n tell about an old board) are in a different business. Of course, they = (oh what the heck, I'll include myself and say "we") are just as concern= ed with whether the old board is going to be the limiting factor in the = ultimate resonance of the piano, as any soundboard installer. And we are= capable of judging whether the limiting factor is action regulation, <B= R>a good voicing, maybe a restringing, maybe reinforcing bridgepin holes= and re-notchng during that restringing, or in fact, A NEW BOARD. Howeve= r we're a lot further from the "tipping point" of replacing The board th= an a board installer is, and not just because while we might replace a b= lock and recap a bridge, a new board is something we send out. (That's t= he matter of convenience.) The other reason is that the scope of a ci= rcumstance in which the "soundboard question" comes up is usually far na= rrower, than the circumstance in which you may be examining a piano for = an estimate. For us, it may be during the first tuning before the owner = has thought to ask us why they have to push so hard in the melody range = of the piano, why the top notes in the bass section are so much loud= er than their neighbors to the north. We'd be thinking that to ourselves= as part of our internal monolog, "how can this piano be more musical". = But all this is long before we and the owner are sitting around the dini= ng room table, adding up the cost of cartage, hammershanks and the wisdo= m of partial solutions which won't last as long as comprehensive "from-n= ew" ones. At this point the owner may not even know what an action regul= ation is (or what it costs in relation to a tuning), and we're already t= hinking: "I bet those wheat cracks at the bridge pins in the 5th octave = are responsible for the balance problems, and although a simple crown an= d bearing checks read sufficient, I'm going to lay the Lowell on it to f= ind if epoxy-reinforcing bridgepins will work, or whether what we're dea= ling with negative bearing, not between the to the hitchpin/rearduplex, = but between the aggr/capo to the rear bridge pin". Yep, it's a di= fferent business, and if you were in it, you'd probably be interested in= the three inclination too. This said, let me reaffirm my respect for yo= u and work work. At 9:27 AM -0500 2/24/04, John Hartman wrote: &gt= ;Didn't the photos show it all? BTW, what they don't show, and what y= ou didn't specify is where along the speaking length your bearing bars a= re place. In the photos, they're placed such that the far end is directl= y above the duplexes which is where you want to read your overall bearin= g. It bothers me a little that this may make the distance between the fa= r en of the front flat and the bridge pin, vary.  I'm sure that thi= s isn't a problem in your shop, given the small number of scales you wor= k on. However I view your bearing check bears as a variation on the s= imple three-point rocker gage, with the only differences being 1.)that t= he first and the middle points are the long flat front portion, 2.) that= while you use it only to measure gaps at the rear end (*) as Baldwin <B= R>does  with the Accu-Just system (* go ahead, RicB, I dare you), and <= BR>3.) you're placing the middle point in the speaking length with the f= ront point, instead of on the bridge. But while you might not be rocking= it to get your reading, it's still a rocker gage. As a rocker gage, it'= s accuracy depends on how from the beginning of the back string length t= he third point hits. Further away, the greater the reading of the same d= eflection, and conversely. Once again, I'm sure it's not a problem in= your practise, but for this peer review group a clarification would be = useful. Finally, I'd like to say that I'm not happy with Tom Lowell's= attention to the market for his downbearing gage, which I believe is <B= R>the best reader of what's happened to downbearing and the bridge over = the decades. In fact, some enterprising supply house could look at his p= atent to see just how secure it is. I gather that Baldwin's "prior art" = is overwhelming in this little device, and the only reason he was able t= o patent and market it was because they chose to overlook his enterprise= . I'd suggest that in light of his neglect (when's the last time a suppl= y house told you when the item was going to be back "in stock"), someone= else could easily step in, hopefully with Baldwin's blessings. B= ill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G. "I gotta go ta woik...." &nb= sp;    ...........Ian Shoales, Duck's Breath Mystery Theater ++= +++++++++++++++++++</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Erwins Pianos Restorations 4721 Parker Rd. Modesto, Ca 95357 209-= 577-8397 Rebuilt Steinway , Mason &Hamlin Sales www.Erwinspiano.co= m</DIV></BODY></HTML>