[CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks

[Paul T Williams]

I aim for the gap between the bottom of hammer tail and top of backcheck 
at the point of let-off to be 1/16".  This all works with this piano. Now, 
my point is that the angle is off.  It's very shallow...like 11 or 12 
degrees rather than what I think it should be at 17 degrees...Is this 
right?  They just don't check right.

Paul




William Monroe <bill at a440piano.net> 
Sent by: caut-bounces at ptg.org
04/14/2009 03:19 PM
Please respond to
caut at ptg.org


To
caut at ptg.org
cc

Subject
Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks






Hi Wim,

I do this height check AT drop, not at full keystroke.  I aim for 1-2mm 
gap in this position.  Different strokes.

William R. Monroe



On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM, <wimblees at aol.com> wrote:
Ron

Is this with a normal stroke, or a let off/drop check stroke?

Wim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net>
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 6:39 am
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks

Paul T Williams wrote: 
> > Hi All. 
> > In regulating this Baldwin R I've been talking about. I'm narrowing in 
> (I hope) on a couple of issues hindering the regulation. I think the > 
backchecks are too high. 
> > Does anyone have the specs on how high up from the back of the key the 
> backchecks should be? 1966 Baldwin R. The angle is also wrong, but I > 
have that information, but I think, since these are not original, they > 
were not installed deep enough into the key, or the wires from whatever > 
supply house were too long. 
> > Any hints? 
> > Thanks people! 
> > Paul 
 
With the key fully depressed, and the action in otherwise decent 
regulation, the top of the back check should be no higher than the end of 
the hammer tail, or a couple of millimeters below. 
Ron N 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090414/5c85376b/attachment.html>