Acro-Tone, was: 77-121-145 etc.

[Farrell]

Robin wrote:

"> Baldwin Acrosonic, another piano that has, to my ear and
> others, an expressive, musical timber in spite of being inordinately
> small."

I have a new client that has two pianos. They want to keep one and sell one (they are engaged and combining families). I went there the first time a couple weeks ago. A 1939 Baldwin Acrosonic spinet (looks like a square grand when the top is all closed - way cool case), and a 1980 Kimball console. The Acro had only about the wear state of the typical 30 year old piano. I told them that as-is, the Kimball is better because the Acro action is stuck in neutral (action centers gummed up and were real slow), but that if they were willing to sink a couple hundred bucks into it, the Baldwin would be much nicer. The Acro action was all stuck/slow and they wanted a piano that played, so we pitch-raised and tuned the Kimball. Sounded much like a Kimball when I was done.  :-(

They wanted to explore fixing the Acro, so I took the action to my shop and gave the flanges the alchohol/water treatment followed by Protek. Freed everything up nicely. Tightened action screws and filed hammers. Put action back in piano last Saturday. Leveled keys and did a little bit of regulating. That piano played sooooo very nicely. We compared how the two pianos sounded. The lady was ready to pitch the Kimball out the front door (I'm glad I did not mention trebuchet!). With NO exaggeration (now keep in mind I do not have a well developed sense of piano tone - but I'm not deaf) this little Acrosonic sounded at least as good as most Steinways or other nice grands I service (well, from about A3 and up anyway). The Acro sounded much better than most 50 year old Steinway grands (I service several of those). The tone was warm and round. No killer octave section. It just absolutely blew me away!   :-)

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robin Hufford" <hufford1@airmail.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: 77-121-145 etc.


> Jack,
>      Isn't the 121 the 5'3" piano and the 135 the 5'8"?   Also, I have
> seen (in Hurst) a Chickering Quarter Grand apparently similar in all
> aspects to the 121 but lacking even the very small cheekblocks of the
> 121.  There were no cheekblocks whatsoever; they were not simply
> missing  - the piano had been obviously designed without them.   It had
> the customary stamping indicating "Quarter Grand BOSTON U.S.A." on the
> strut as the pianos from pre-1909 or so do but where there is usually
> the mark "121" it said "122".  There was apparently, a very short run of
> these pianos.

BIG SNIP

> There must be some significance, although I don't know what it is, which
> has  to do with the ratio of a set of such long speaking lengths to such
> a small soundboard as exists on this piano.  Perhaps, something similar
> exists on the Baldwin Acrosonic, another piano that has, to my ear and
> others, an expressive, musical timber in spite of being inordinately
> small.
> Regards, Robin Hufford
> 
> JWyatt1492@AOL.COM wrote:
> 
> >    Part 1.1    Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> >            Encoding: 7bit
>