Everett Upright

[Ron Nossaman]

>Hi Ron,
>
>Not bad--but are we not supposed to look at a piano from the ideal?

Sure we are, ideally, but as I am told early and often; isn't there the 
practicality of working with what you have? It's another of those "have it 
both ways" kind of things. One could easily put $20K worth of design and 
remanufacturing work into it, and have a piano with a perceived market 
value of up to maybe $4K in parts of the world I'm familiar with. I somehow 
doubt that is what Phil had in mind with his plans for rewhatevering. Being 
able to split hairs infinitely small, unfortunately doesn't create a demand 
for it commensurate with the cost of the splitting.


>I know
>there are lots of new pianos that don't do 8 seconds at c6--but does that
>make them worthy?

We were talking about a 100 year old upright, not a new piano. The builders 
for the most part probably didn't know better then. Today, they should - 
whether they do or not.


>And of course some hundred year old uprights still do 11
>or 12 seconds. Now THAT *is* impressive.

It sure is, but doesn't necessarily make them viable instruments either, 
any more than the 6 second sustain at C6 by itself makes Phil's Everett a 
viable instrument.


>Could any of the more experienced suggest what would happen to sustain time
>if Phil replaced the strings? Would it get better or worse?

I'd say it depends on how rusty the original strings are. It should get 
better, unless something else is done to the piano that makes it worse - 
like shipping it to a dryer climate.

Ron N