Chickering Anniversary Grand

[Robin Hufford]

List,
     This post is incorrect as I was actually describing the characteristics
of a Chickering 123, NOT a 133.  The first post on the subject was about a
133 that was 6' 9"  and this put in my mind the idea of the 6'6" 123 which,
without effort or notice morphed into the 133 hence the comments.  Although
some of the comments below are appropo viz the 133, they actually proceeded,
as I have said, from observations about a 123.
     I have never heard of a 133 being 6'9" and may learn something, or we
may be informed that the first posting on this subject about the Anniversary
Grand, which I have deleted, was actually a 123 which seems more likely.
     I do have a 133 soundboard in the shop, however, and will count the
ribs today and post this info later.
Regards, Robin

Robin Hufford wrote:

> Hello Del,
>      I think the 133, at least the one I have - built around 1921 or so,
> darn, nearly an "Anniversary Grand" has 8 or, perhaps more.  I was just
> looking at this last month, but don't remember exactly at the moment.  I
> do remember, however, some of the unusual ribbing arrangements,
> including the crossing of the grain of the board at about 65 degrees.
> This piano is not the same as the early 133.
>      It  is a tremendous piano, particularly in the bass, and differs
> substantially from  the earlier 133 which had a plate like that of the
> 121 which is open on the right side curve, much like that of your Walter
> Grand,  and a built up rim.  The 133 I have has a continuous bent rim,
> with the normal kind of plate on the right side.  The long bridge does
> not, as far as I know, lap over the inner rim as it stops well short of
> the rim, just past the last string.  However, as I pointed out in a
> description of this piano last year, the bridge is floated through a
> considerable part of its length.
>      If there is any problem with this piano I think most would say it
> is in the last octave and a half or so in the treble where the halving
> time is short.  This, I believe, is a function of the very substantially
> shortened speaking lengths which run to the extreme of taking  C-88 to
> c. 40 mm.  Nevertheless, I like the piano even like this, but I would
> still be curious to hear the sound of an altered one in which the
> speaking lengths have been increased to more conventional values where
> C88 would wind up being in the low 50's range.  .
> Regards, Robin Hufford
>
> Delwin D Fandrich wrote:
>
> >    Part 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> >            Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives