Paul: Perhaps I should read your article. But do you (or others) think that Steinway was right to go to a fatter pin given their system? What about restringing a Steinway with a new block with #1 pins? Will it create problems? David Love ----- Original Message ----- From: <larudee@pacbell.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: January 24, 2002 5:41 PM Subject: Re: Tuning Pin Size > |John, > > What David is calling #1 and #2 are generally called 1/0 and 2/0, which is the > same as 0 and 00. the corresponding diameters are .276" and .282" or 7.00mm. > and 7.15mm. The 6.75mm. pins are the true size 1 pins, the size number > increasing as the diameter decreases. This size is in the Fletcher and Newman > catalog, but not generally available from U.S. distributers. > > For the pros and cons of increasing and decreasing pin size, you may be > interested in the considerations set forth in my article on tuning pin physics > in the January and February issues of the PTG Journal, which are a bit lengthy > to reproduce here. As for your thoughts about the use of 2/0 pin in new pianos > starting with Steinway (because of their closed pinblock design without > bushings) and then being copied by other (primarily American) manufacturers, I > think that is exactly the case. > > Paul Larudee > > John Delacour wrote: > > > At 8:08 PM -0800 1/23/02, David Love wrote: > > >I just finished restringing a couple of older pianos (Schiedmayer, > > >Schomacker). Both pianos were originally strung with #1 tuning > > >pins. This was nice since both blocks were good it allowed me to > > >restring with #2's. I'm curious when/why companies got in the habit > > >of doing the initial stringing with #2's. The improved tuning > > >quality of a smaller pin would suggest using a #1, as I believe many > > >Japanese makers do. I know some rebuilders (Dale Erwin) are also > > >stringing new blocks with #1's. Is there any compelling reason not > > >to use a #1 pin when installing a new block? > > > > I'm not familiar with American gauges and I gave up using gauge > > numbers after a few months in the trade, since there seemed to be a > > great vagueness about the actual diameters. Under the old system, #0 > > or #00 would be the original size, I think. However I have found > > most German pianos used either a 6.70 - 6.75 mm. pin or a 6.85 - 6.90 > > pin. Some had a turned thread and some a filed thread. The evenness > > and sharpness of the thread on the best old pins is not to be found > > on any pin of modern manufacture. It was most common for makers to > > use a shorter pin (54 - 55 mm) than is generally used nowadays. > > > > I always use a 6.75 mm. pin in a new block and on original blocks I > > am very often able to do the job with a pin 6.90 to 7.00 in diameter, > > provided the piano has not been over-used. The fact that the many, > > if not most, of the old tuners tuned with a T-hammer, means probably > > that less damage tended to be done by tuners. The man who taught me > > to tune used a T-hammer on grands till the end of his life! How he > > managed with Korean pianos, heaven knows. > > > > The French used French-made pins which were even thinner (6.60 mm) > > and a few makers used a tapering pin. Older Brinsmeads had a pin > > tapering from about 6.75 to 6.50, so it is possible to restring using > > the very smallest cylindrical pin (6.75 mm). > > > > As in so many things, the influence of Steinway practice may have > > raised the size of the original pin. The unbushed Steinway > > string-plate requires the ise of a longer pin and, to avoid bending, > > a fatter pin is required. > > > > At least that's about how I see it. I can see no reason for not > > using the smallest pin in a bushed string-plate or an open plank, > > both of which I personally prefer. > > > > Did you have a look at the string tensions on the Schiedmayer? Frightening! > > > > JD > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC