Don't score the hammer tails beyond #50 sandpaper. The checkering file, saw blade, etc. just wears out the backchecks. David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Paul T Williams" <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu> To: caut at ptg.org Received: 4/14/2009 2:33:38 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks >Yes! >The tail is pushing through... with a very easy of push. (on the bench >test...) How else???<G> I guess you could push through the strings with >something... Tails need to be scored as well....very smooth.. >I'll try the rest of the test tomorrow....I'm done....Due to my factor of >40 hours per week unless I apply for extra hours!! (what a joke) How >can someone take care of 110 pianos with a limit of 40 hours per week???? >it just can't be done... I some how make it happen. Most pianos suffer >and the best ones get the attention! I guess it's the same for a lot of >you bloakes, eh? (going OT?) >Great tips! >Thanks, Fred. >Paul >Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> >Sent by: caut-bounces at ptg.org >04/14/2009 04:17 PM >Please respond to >caut at ptg.org >To >caut at ptg.org >cc >Subject >Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks >A too shallow angle will mean that the tail can be pushed through, (if you >use finger pressure downward on the hammer, on the bench with the hammer >in check) rather than getting tighter. And that means inconsistency in >actual performance. So experiment with changing the angle. I like to hold >the wire with a slotted tool and bend the head with my hand (that is, >pressing on the head, make a bend in the wire close to the head). Then you >readjust check distance and try again. When you get something that works >well, you can work with a straightedge and make all of them the same >(checking from time to time to see that it is working, rather than adjust >all of them and then say Whoops! should have been a little different <G>) >A straightedge is easier than gauging angles individually. >Regards, >Fred Sturm >University of New Mexico >fssturm at unm.edu >On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Paul T Williams wrote: >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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC