Hello Terry,
I don't at all think you have any thing at all to apologize for -
as you were only noting and stating what was a fact until Del's
subsequent posting. I see nothing negative in that, nor do I think any
umbrage was taken by readers of the list at your posting, as, nearly
all but one or two, read it to encounter and be informed or amused by,
opinions which represent experiences different from their own, as do
I. I know I would be bored senseless if I had to read nothing but my
own personal opinions and experiences expressed on it all the time and
would, of course, soon disregard it. The seeming negativeness
encountered from others on this subject, arises, I think, mostly from
frustration at having to alter established procedures, and is, I think,
understandable. I felt it myself when I first worked on one of these
pianos but they are really not hard to take on; just a lot of nagging,
unusual details must be handled.
Are you sure your piano is a 121? Perhaps it is a 133 or other
model. All of the 121's I have seen have been 5'4" or so. I have only
see two or three of the 133's which are the 5'7''. Jack Wyatt did list
somewhile back, though, the 121's as being 5'7'' so, perhaps, I have
just not seen this kind and the designation 121 means something else
rather than size. The 5' 4'' 121's appear to be larger and are
deceptive in this regard. Everything you have described, including the
rim, in your subsequent posting suggests it is the 121, as I said, these
are 5'4'', judging, from all the ones I have seen, which, in number,
have been about 10 or 12.
An interesting fact on these pianos is the relative length of
strings per unit of case. If you measure, you will find that the 121
has, through the mid-range, high tenor and most of the bass, larger
strings than an L or an O, which is the 5'10' Steinway. This is due to
the characteristic Chickering location of the bass bridge and the string
scaling which this forces. I know little about the 5'7'' pianos,
although I had one I disassembled completely, saving the soundboard,
plate and action, after it had been left in the rain. It is, or was,
however, a later 133 than yours, if such it is.
I agree as to the beauty of the plate as you describe it and have
seen that same kind of open design even on a Concert Grand (1910). .
Chickering abandoned this feature in the mid teens and designed a plate
that proceeded to the rim on the right side, probably thinking that
there was a weakness, inherent in the earlier featured design which
would be helped by making a more conventionally sized plate, or this may
have been associated with a move to 440 pitch as opposed to 435.
However, I am certain the open plates were more than adequate in either
case, as the struts are more numerous, larger and the nosebolts which
secure them to the rim and braces much more numerous than on the more
conventional plates of other companies, which work well enough. Since
I, unfortunately, I had the disgusting experience of having a newly
rebuilt and refinished 121, elegant, beautiful and wonderful sounding,
have a leg jump out as it was being rolled across the shop, and fall, I
know from firt hand experience that the plates are substantial and very,
very strong. Although there was damage to the rim, stretcher and
finish, the plate was in no way affected nor did even the tuning change
to any perceptible degree, something that was amazing to me. This is,
however, another story.
The effective use of the case for longer string lengths in the
lower part of the piano is remarkable. Looking closely at the
instrument one will see that a very effective attempt was made to use
the length of the case most effectively. However, where the string
lengths are proportionately greater in a large part of the case, this
situation is somewhat reversed in the high treble. Here, they are
somewhat shorter than the usual scaling found in the pianos of most
other manufacturer's. This is, no doubt by design and contributes to the
particular, characteristic sound hear in the last octave and a half, or
so. Note 88 is, at this time (c. 1905 or so) generally scaled at 40 mm
on most Chickering models which I have measured from this time period:
for example, the 121, 133, possibly the 116, and the 123 and may have
been so on various models, for a very long time, perhaps as long as 40
or 50 years.
The shortened scale in the last octave or so, is in my opinion,
the reason for the somewhat different treble sound which is not actually
weak as is oftened claimed, unless other factors intervene, but has a
rapid halving time; that is the decay curve slopes downward very rapidly
to a lower level aftersound relative to the slope and aftersound of
pianos with a longer and more conventional speaking length, for example
Steinway, M&H, Knabe, etc. who have, at least at that time, c. 50 mm at
note 88. This is a lot of difference, as I am sure you will appreciate
when one considers that it is a 25% difference at note 88. Others may
think otherwise and have there own views on this of course, but the
board, crown, or lack of it, ribbing in the treble and downbearing, all
of course with a role to play, are not, in my opinion, central to this
sound; the speaking lengths are. The only way change to a more
conventional sound is to change somehow the speaking length. This can
be done by recapping the extant bridge and increasing, in a limited
fashion, the lengths in the high treble, or by, of course, actually
moving the bridge itself. I have done neither but can see the
possibilites in this.
The normal Chickering sound is not objectionable, to my ear, and if
care is taken, as I said in the other post, in choice and installation
of hammers, string leveling, tone building, and good termination, the
characteristic sound in the highest treble, is very nice for the vast
majority of the piano literature, for example, the music of Bach,
Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, a good part of Brahms and Chopin, etc.
Where a lot of use is made of the high treble, in a brilliant setting,
for example some of the Etudes, Ballades and other works of Chopin, the
Etudes, Hungarian Rhapsodies, and other, but not all, works, of Liszt,
some of the music of some of the later French and Russian composers, and
others, perhaps, a more ringing treble makes a difference, but, in
general, most of the literature is more than adequately rendered in a
well rebuilt Chickering with its characteristic sound, in my opinion.
In fact, the vast majority of this music was composed for pianos with
high trebles sounding much, much, more "Chickering like", as opposed to
the sound encountered on the "modern" piano produced since the mid
1870's, a point to consider for whatever it is worth.
Also, there may be another, extremely small rib, easily missed,
virtually hidden by the keybed in the top of the treble. I know of no
other manufacturer who has produced even remotely, such a numerous
variety of intelligent designs, and, it seems, to have explored more
design features, including rib scaling and other parameters, than this
company.
The rails that appear to be wood, have a metal insert into which
the brass flanges are secured by machine screws. This is the kind of
metallic rail I refered to. If the rails are completely wood, then, in
the ones I have seen, the flanges are the newer(since c. 1907) wooden
ones.
I think Tokiwa makes a whippen which fits these pianos: I have
replaced hammers and shanks but always reconditioned the whippens.
Regards, Robin Hufford
Farrell wrote:
> Oops! That was supposed to go private. I guess my inner-most thoughts are now public. I so ashamed!
>
> Hey, that is the worst thing I have EVER said about this list - so not so bad after all!
>
> I really do appreciate almost everything else I get out of this list. I really do!
>
> My comment wasn't meant to be so much critical of the list, but rather that I didn't want to bore the list.
>
> Am I digging a deeper hole for myself? :-( Time to go.
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Chickering 1/4 Grand Action Rebuild
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC