Terry,
Some may think these pianos are unworthy of substantial effort at rebuilding but my experience has been exactly the contrary. The unusual, but not difficult design features, perhaps, frustrate at times but, nevertheless, done well, the end result is a very nice sounding piano with a sound that is much larger in tone that what one would expect from such a small piano, but, with an insignificant difference in the high treble which some may call a deficiency but, for myself,
is still quite musical and acceptable. I am not sure which model Quarter Grand you will encounter - the 121 which is 5' 4" or so, the 133 which is c. 5' 7' or, an even more rare model, the 122, again 5'4" but with no cheek blocks. Nevertheless, all can be great pianos.
I am more familiar with the 121's as I have rebuilt a number over the years and have maintained the hammer angles and layout of the shanks and whippens consistent with the original designs, again, with good results.
The Chickering brass flanged action which continued in use until the first decade of the previous century, along with its brass flanges and other characteristics was, in my opinion, an exceedingly well designed action and probably, more expensive to manufacture than that of Steinway, although, there is no doubt in my mind, that Steinway made their parts of a better quality of wood; the condition of actions from pianos of similar ages from both companies easily demonstrates
this. The Chickering action centers are stabilized at least as well as is achieved by Steinway's use of the tubular action rail, and, possibly more so. Both systems developed in response to the need for more stability of rails as a predicate for stability of regulation, something which we, nowdays, take for granted but which, in the early and mid part of the 19th century was a significant technical and production problem. This action morphed progressively into another,
more conventional action, from the period, roughly of 1905 to 1910, in several stages.
In the original, long used action, the brackets were of plywood, with brass flanges holding the action centers onto metal rails using metal screws. Both whippen and hammer rails were of metal. What is to me an intelligent design feature is evident in the angling of the whippens and shanks in order to square up the rotation of the action centers with that of the key; this is achieved by angling whippens and shanks so that they are more nearly parallel with the key itself
which mitigates the difference in moment developed at the ends of the centers under rotation that occurs when they are not squared to the rotation of the key as happens as the flaring of the keys becomes more or less great - a design feature of, perhaps, arguable efficiency but, certainly a worthy refinement of analysis.
The idea, more conventional and still in use, that the sides of the hammers should be squared to the strings and that the rotation of shanks and whippens should be at 90 degrees to the strings with the hammers angled to achieve this is only one alternative. The Chickering or Brown, whose design it was, concept was to consider the efficiency of transfer of motion from key to action center to be more important works just as well in my experience - this said having rebuilt
and played a number of these and, of course, many of the more conventional systems.
A progressive transformation of these actions ensued from about 1905 or so. This began, as far as I can tell, with a change to wooden flanges on the hammer rail and your piano probably has brass flanges and a metal rail for the whippens and a wooden rail with wooden flanges for the hammershanks.
It is possible to order the brass flanges although frequently they lack adequate grooving and this has to been enlarged by filing. The wooden shanks and flanges are available.
It is extremely important that the weight characteristics of the hammers be reproduced; this means cold pressed, springy, well tapered, well shaped, and hence, light American hammers like those produced by Ronsen, Schaff or others. The use of the big, hard, overly dense Asian or European supplied hammer is asking for trouble, both tonally and mechanically and I attribute much of the disdain encountered occasionally among other technicians to a poor choice of hammers,
among other things. Using relatively light resilient hammers similar to those the piano was designed for does necessitate more string lifting and levelling for full tonal development but the time spent in this is well worth the effort in results obtained and the piano, in my mind, cannot be fairly evaluated with substantial tone building after regulation.
Eventually, this action morphed into a more conventional action with metal brackets, wooden rails, squared action centers and, again, more conventional hammer boring. Even though, to the eye, this form appears conventional it is not completely so, at least for those produced up until around 1930 or so. The keyed has the characteristic Chickering rail and style construction in which no glue used in the railed area under the keyframe which is designed to allow the panels
to expand and contract from left to right or right to left and and move along the keybed rails. It, apparently, was thought, and is, sufficiently stable that the company felt that the rails of the keyframe itself could be permitted full contact with the keybed, which they do. They are flat and fully in contact with the keybed; glides are absent, unlike most other, Steinway-style pianos. If yours is an intermediary stage, it will probably have the wooden flanges up top
and, as said before, metal below, with this kind of keybed/keyframe configuration. If you have plywood brackets they can be easily repaired if necessary with various glues.
The pinblock may be a segmented, four piece block fitted into four separate compartaments, each with double flanges, and attached to the plate above with machine screws installed from the bottom side, or it may be the more ordinary two piece or one piece block fastened with wood screws from the top.
Again, a much part maligned design, but one which works well, is the four piece/ double flanged, machine screw system. This is not as hard or time-consuming to install as was made out last month on this same subject. All one has to do is to remove the old segments of the block which come out easily and cut them in two at the offset at the point in the wood that represents the junction of the two flanges so that they can be laid back in the recess in the cast iron, one
on top of the other. Where this is is readily evident to the eye as the two flanges are offset, of course, one from the other. There will then be eight panels, that is two per segment with each pair of panels corresponding to a segment. Allowing for the saw kerf and, using the old panels as a pattern for the new ones, cut and plane the new ones to size. Then fit each panel to its respective flange, glue them together, mark and drill.
This is easily done by fitting the deeper panel singly, then by extending a small guide hole drilled earlier in the plate into the lower panel once it is fitted. Once these are acceptable, the pin can be kept in, fixing the two and the upper panel laid down onto the recess, the upper panel then fitted and, when acceptable, the hole then extended into the upper panel. This then allows the entire segment to be glued together in situ which will ensure the fitting remains.
Believe me, as the individual panels are hardly an inch or so wide, and using the old ones as a guide, it is quick and easy work to fit them to the flanges. Then mark and drill, in or out of the piano as one chooses.
The bridges in the treble, particularly, tend to have bad splitting along the front bridge pins which, of course, should be addressed either by recapping or otherwise repairing but the pins need everywhere to be secured with epoxy or CA as preferred.
An aggravating problem, difficult of diagnosis is the possibility of a the very first, extremely short rib being loose or the soundboard button next to it being loose. This is difficult to address directly as the key bed is in the way. One has to work around this one way or another.
Frequently, the board will be nearly flat, - the utility of, need for, and designed intent of crown in this context is another subject - but if the design characteristics of the instrument are maintained, a wonderful, expressive tone can readily be the result while using the old board and makes worthwhile the effort.
Regards, Robin Hufford
Farrell wrote:
> I have a customer with a 1906 Chickering Quarter Grand. He left a message saying he is ready to rebuild the action. I know these pianos have a lot of odd-ball characteristics - brass flanges, wippens angled to rail, etc. Can anyone state the very basic pitfalls of rebuilding these actions. I'm not asking for a full treatise here, just the ABCs of why the old Chickering actions are so troublesome. And, are part available, or does one need to rebuild the old wips, etc. Thanks.
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC