> Hi Ron, > No, not intended for production in any but the 275, and perhaps 220. He > made that clear to me as well. Certainly well out of reach of us average > Joes. But an intriguing experiment. Intriguing indeed. Looked cool too. > I'm guessing your take on all this is that if you make the bridge > (or most of its top half) hygroscopically inactive, by doing the epoxy > thing, that bridge pin problem goes away - no more string abrading up > and down on it seasonally. So no need to look for a harder material. Yes, that's part of it. The other part is that the cap is considerably more dent resistant in the bargain. >For > those of us not going so far as recapping bridges, though, it seems like > a harder pin would be nice. Might reduce the tendency to noise and slop > a bit over time. > Regards, > Fred Sturm The harder pin should resist the wear from the string better, surely, but I'm not sure that is such a big problem. The cap would still crush, and the pins would still loosen and flagpole, producing beats, regardless of the presence or absence of string damage on the pin surface. I'm not so sure the harder pins are a net gain unless they improve tone noticeably. Do they, by themselves? A CA (or epoxy if you can do it) soaked cap doesn't react hygroscopically to nearly the extent that a clean solid cap will, which helps matters when retaining the original cap, whatever is used for pinning. FWIW Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC