This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi Robin. Thanks for responding. I sent this private as the list appears = to have only negative thoughts about this action. My comments are = interspersed below: Terry Farrell =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Robin Hufford" <hufford1@airmail.net> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:37 AM Subject: Re: Chickering 1/4 Grand Action Rebuild > 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. This piano is a scale 121, built in 1907, and is 5' 7" long. > 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.=20 This action has plywood brackets, but I think (?????) the rails are = wood. It does have the brass flanges. 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. This action DEFINATELY has angled wippens and shanks! > 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. Again, I know it has brass wippen flanges (I have replaced several) and = I think (???) it has wooden rails and brass shank flanges - but I could = be wrong - so many pianos. > 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. Pinblock is two piece with machine screws installed from the bottom = side. But he is not ready for belly rebuilding at this time - the piano = definately is ready - but his pocket book is not. His action is so bad - = it is falling apart - I leave a half dozen shanks and flanges with him = each time I tune his piano. > 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. I haven't evaluated the board yet, but I do remember that it only had = five ribs! I know shanks are available - I have installed many replacements on this = piano (come to think of it, it does have brass shank flanges because we = always need to remove the wooden one and put the old brass one on). Are replacement wippens available? His are really trashed. > Regards, Robin Hufford >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farrell wrote: >=20 > > 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 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/9d/8b/0b/95/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC