<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Phillip, it is= interesting that you have gathered the specification information on Babc= ock's patent, but you don't seem to acknowledge the illustration (page on= e) that goes with it. What makes things even stranger is that the US pate= nt office is actually 'missing' the specification page (page two); at thi= s point in time the US patent office lists the second page as being missi= ng. Since you have something they seem to have lost, they might appreciat= e hearing from you.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The point was not n= ecessarily that overstringing predates the 1800s, I only used that as a s= uggestive starting point for which to begin a search through perhaps othe= r sources. I do remember seeing an overstrung illustration from around 18= 05, but it is very possible that there are examples of this practice pre = 1800.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Are you unsure that there was overstri= nging before the Steinway patent, or that it could have happened before 1= 800? Ackerly patented an overstrung design in 2/27/1855, so that should t= ake care of the first part. As for the second part, I would need to do so= me more investigating to provide you with a specific example. But even in= the 1855 patent, Ackerly points out that the arrangement of the strings = in nothing new, so we know for sure that overstinging at least predates 1= 855.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bradley M. Snook</DIV></BODY></HTML>