rebuilding decisions

[Robin Hufford]

Hello Mark,
Some comments interposed.

Mark Davidson wrote:

> Thanks for the comments, Robin.  The piano is 4'10", quite small, but
> interestingly doesn't seem small, if that makes any sense.  SN 51124.
> One of the action rails has a 1923 date stamped on the end.
> Many baby grands look "truncated" to me whereas this one looks
> more to  be proportionately scaled down.

This does make sense to me, especially on a piano built in Boston.  Chickering,
as far as I know, began making very small. proportionate pianos with the Quarter
Grand series just after the turn of the century.  HFMiller no doubt was aware of
this and had to compete against it in the New England market.  However, I am not
familiar with this particular Miller model.

> I will post scale
> measurements when I have them, but I thought it was interesting to
> have wound trichords at the high end of the bass bridge - something
> I haven't seen before.

Again, this is typical of Chickering and, I would hazard a guess that it is also
typical of the Boston school of piano manufacturing.

>
>
> The soundboard seems to be quite solid and the sound is still
> strong with lots of sustain (ignoring the dead bass strings and flattened
> hammers).  I won't be making any rash decisions in that department.
> Right now it's in my garage with a dehumidifier at about 45%
> and I'll let it sit a few weeks to make sure nothing develops.
> I thought about putting a small (25W) light bulb under the piano
> to help dry it, but I don't want to *encourage* cracks, so I think
> not.
>
> I tried reshaping one of the flattened hammers and a much fuller
> tone resulted, bright but without the harshness of the flat strike
> points.
>
> I tend to agree with you about the bridges.  The treble bridge
> has only a few hairline cracks, while the bass bridge is really

I do agree with Joe Garrett that where the bass bridge has material of such
quality as to crack as this one has  then the treble is usually of the same
quality.  However, judging from the pictures, this treble bridge seems to be ok
and I would go with it if the rest is like that shown in the pictures.

>
> splitting in places.  The workmanship is amazing on these -
> I don't think my photos do them justice.  Note the maker's
> mark on the treble bridge photo.

I saw that mark and thought it was nifty.  Also, is the piano an ex-player?  I
notice your picture of the bellows appears to have a slot in the keybed.  Was
this for a player?  If so, then I doubt the bellows was, actually, a fallboard
control device.

>
>
> > The pictures suggests that the pins are loose in the birdseye, even if the
> > bushings themselves are OK.
>
> Not sure what you're seeing here, but I will check these more
> closely.

I am suspicious that the wooden part holding the center pin has shrunk down and
the pin is loose.  The reasons, aside from experience, that I wonder about this
is the impression I have from the picture that the rep lever pin appears to be
protruding slightly  from the bushing.

>
>
> Silk cords - yes once they start to go...  These are installed with little
> pegs holding them in place.  Probably glued also.
>
> Another "feature" -  a small bellows at the left end of the fallboard,
> presumably some sort of "slow fall" damping mechanism (fallboard is
> two-piece with hinge in middle of keys).

Interesting - I sometimes have made the point in conversation,  in a kind of
friendly sarcasm, that a prominent Japanese maker had, finally come up with
something original - the fallboard closer found in the last ten years or so on
certain pianos.  But, I guess this, too, was anticipated.
Regards, Robin Hufford