[CAUT] New Backchecks?

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

I don't remember if the back checks were replaced on that piano.  But  
back checks can be tricky.   There were many posts about Steinway and  
changes over the years.  Well, you have to include back checks in  
that discussion.  A few years ago Steinway switched to a very stiff  
wire, so stiff that you couldn't adjust the back check without  
compromising the hole in the key.  They started using a multi- 
laminate piece glued to the key at the base of the wire.  But if you  
used those new back checks in old softwood keys, you had to buy a  
front/back wire bending pliers.  Trying to bend the wire with your  
finger or thumb was difficult and hard on the key.  Newer Steinways  
seem to have a little less stiffness in the wire, but not much less.

I've used non-Steinway back checks, but the fluting can be a problem  
as well as the diameter and length.  If the length of the wire is too  
long to get proper back check height, you have to clip off some of  
the wire.  That shortens the length of fluting that will hold the  
wire in the hole in the key.

Fred Sturm said he preferred the less stiff variety.  I have to  
agree.  So why did Steinway change?  And why were the old back checks  
long on wood and short on wire? And why are some back check wires  
installed at an angle, while others are installed vertically with an  
extreme bend in the middle?

Richard West


On Apr 28, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Paul T Williams wrote:

> 	
> To
> cc
> Subject
> New Backchecks?
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> How often do y'all replace your backchecks on concert grands?   
> Where is the cut-off point? One of our D's is getting new hammers  
> and an action overhaul this summer.  The BC's are looking a bit  
> tired, but no cut-throughs on the leather.  Some in the middle are  
> getting pretty thin.  I think Richard West told me the action was  
> "completely"(?) rebuilt about 15 years ago and it gets a lot of use  
> for recitals and rehersals all school year long.  It's a 1980 Sty  
> D.  The BC's might even be original and not part of the stack  
> rebuild.  Richard, are you checking out e-mails this morning?
>
> Thanks all.
>
> Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090428/52cf85de/attachment.html>