Based on the lack of responses from my last post I think a protocol mistake
was made by me in responding to several of you in one email. I'll include
it below for convenience. Be sure to read all the way down, that's where
it gets controversial. (Although I'm ready to let go now) Terry figured it
out so he gets the award. Thanks Terry. I told the client to sit down and
he took it like a man. Also Dale how far did you have to plane down your
piano with the same problem? Did you have to do anything special to reset
the bearing in the treble or did it get a new block? I'm going for the
"Deepest String Cuts" title for 2002 and there are only a few days left.
Happy Holidays, Steve Bellieu
Dale Erwin wrote:
Could you share how it is you're measuring 1.5 degrees of bearing on the
bass and with what. If the rear string length was 8 inches( possible on a D)
8 Times .026=.208 or (1.5 degrees) of distance bearing . Considering this
bass bridge has no cantilever I don't mind seeing this at the top end of
the bridge but I'd like to see .05 degrres in the mono
section........................
Dale, All measurements referred to so far were from the strung piano.
Individual strings were removed and thread/gap measurements were taken. I
was conservative in the bass and subtracted for the twisted part of the
string riding on the hump. Note # 3 showed 1.3 deg, note # 10 showed 1.7
deg, and note # 19 showed 1.3 deg. Inverse tangent of (gap/rear length).
Did you mean to write .5 deg in stead of .05 ? Just for giggles I checked
one of the previously measured tenor bridge strings in the middle of the
overstrung section after the bass strings were off. (The following day) It
came up from .06 deg to .5 deg.
Greg Newell wrote:
I re-read your original post below and I still come to the same conclusion.
It sounds as though you're somewhat accomplished in rebuilding so I'm not
sure I understand your hesitation in recapping. If the original pins are
loose and you don't intend to replace with oversize but you are going
through the trouble of pulling the plate and then subsequent re-stringing
then .... why not? ..............................
If I could do something with epoxy in a few hours and save all that expense.
It will get new pins. I am not an accomplished rebuilder or expert
woodworker. I have done dozens of restringings and several board shimming
internal restorations with doweled in new blocks. I haven't done any in
shop belly work for almost a year. Am doing mostly actions now. At one
time I was hot to try bridge capping but I don't think this is the right
time for me. The piano will go to another shop if that is the decision. It
has been a lot of dues paid to get to where I am right now. It has kind of
been a relief that the constant acquisition of tools has slowed and I have
been busy doing things I am good at. I'm reluctant to take on the big
learning curve again. It is tempting though. I am handy with chisels and
planes and japanese saws and reach for them first before power tools. I
used to cut down key # 88 with a bandsaw, now I pare it with a chisel just
for the pleasure of it.
Ron Nossaman wrote:
But it's not being condemned, it's being restrung even though it sounded ok
before? Is the damaged cap the reason for the restringing? And if so, why
the reluctance to replace it? If not, why is it being restrung?
The piano is long overdue for restringing. It has never been restrung. It
is starting to shed treble strings. Capo needs to be reshaped. No one
noticed the cap. It does not sound good in the treble. I thought I was
catching a whiff of that old " If it doesn't have X amount of crown it isn't
worth working on". That was why I said I was not going to condemn the
piano. I was trying to find out if any one had done the kind of bridge top
resurfacing that I am imagining. I have an obligation to try to repair
economically before replacement.
>I'm anticipating tight new bridge pins are going to contribute to tonal
>improvement up higher.
Why, considering the condition of the cap and resulting bearing
measurements?
The pins come out easily. I thought the bearing was ok in that part of the
piano. (I'm not an expert, I'm soliciting an opinion from you rebuilder
types)
Everybody,
One thing I have learned already is to inspect every piano in the field
if possible. I hate these kind of surprises. Forgive my lack of protocol
knowledge on this kind of message board if I'm creating strange posts. I
guess we have to be careful not to take each other out of context with all
this cutting and pasting.
I attempted to quantify the condition of the grooves now that the
strings are off. Either it doesn't look as bad as I thought or I'm getting
used to it. Maybe they are swelling up a bit. Humidity is up. I held a
straight edge on the edge of the bridge and slid a needle under until it
stopped. It measured between .025" and .030" in tenor and low capo. High
capo was .020" to .025". Actually that is about as bad as I imagined, the
strings were about 2/3 into the top. I have no idea what "normal" wear is
because I have never thought about this before. Mitigating factor : the
wood at the edge that the ruler was on is a little bit puffy.
Is this too far to sand/plane down? Could the duplexes be ground down
a bit if so? This might be my last gasp here. Does anyone know of anyone
who has attempted to resurface a top? I guess this is mostly for my own
interest since I would only do it if it were a known procedure that worked.
Like epoxying pins is now a known procedure. I seem to remember it used to
be controversial.
I just had another thought that might not offend those who thought any
buildup of epoxy in the groove would fail. What about swelling the top a
little, then planing, then renotching, then pins in w/ epoxy and
saturating notches and top. Any amount the grooves swelled up would then be
saturated and not built up. (Wood Epoxy Saturation Technique anyone?)
Cheers, Steve Bellieu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC