[Files] Sohmer, Chickering, Mason & Hamlin (Modified by Kent Swafford)

[hufford1@airmail.net]

Hello Ron,
      Here are some of the long promised pictures of the Sohmer, 
Chickering
and Mason & Hamlin pianos.
Pics # 33-37 are general views of the agraffe bridge of the Sohmer.
Pics # 38-40 show the elevation of the rear structure of the bridge and
show the front of the bridge being lifted up by the string.
Pics # 41-44 show other views of the Sohmer
Pics # 45 shows the unusual drilled capo of the Sohmer
Pics # 45-47 show the underside of the soundboard with the 
characteristic
maple strip let in under the ribs and attached to the board, a feature
which attempted to offset of the moment created by the upward pull at 
the
front of the agraffe.
Pic # 49 shows the cut-off bar and the rim
Pic # 50 shows the over-all shape of the case

      The next set is of the Chickering 121 referred to in the earlier
message a week or so ago.  This piano is 5 ft 4 inches long.
Pic # 52-54 show views the tenor area of the long bridge and the bass
bridge.  Note the bass bridge is at quite a distance from a similar 
point
on the long bridge;  the result is a longer speaking length relative to
the Steinway type of placement. The backscale is also apparent.

      The next set is of a Chickering 123C, a 6ft 6 inch piano, extremely
similar to the 121 but scaled up to the larger size.  The section
breaks are in identical locations on this model and also the 122, a 5
ft 1 inch instrument.
Pic # 56 - 61 show similar views of the layout on the 123; note the
extremely long backscale lengths, something, given the sound of this 
piano
which lends support to your argument regarding the negative effect of
short backscales.  Sorry for the dust.
Pic # 62 shows the cantilever support for the bass bridge.  Given that 
the
bridge is so far from the edge of the board and the cantilever is so 
very
small, one can wonder whether the extra length it imparts is that
important relative to placing the bridge an inch closer to the edge of 
the
board. Particularly so were there any real detriment attendant to the 
use
of such a cantilever, which I doubt.  Obviously the design department
considered is important, and, any detriment insignificant, or, at least
worth the trade-off.  The other pictures follow in another post.
Regards, Robin Hufford

Hello Ron,
To continue:
re:  123C
Pics # 62 - 66 show the very long backscale lengths
Pic # 67 shows a similar area of the bridges on a Steinway B
Pic # 68 is a final view of the 123c looking along the bass strings 
toward
the bridge

      The next pictures show some of the treble ribbing of a Mason & 
Hamlin
Symetrigrand piano.
Pic # 69 - treble ribbing with my average sized hand for a perspective.

Pics # 70 - Symetrigrand.tif show various aspects of this piano.

      The next set is from a Chickering 141A CG (1928)

Pic# 21 shows a bar cast into the plate to serve a similar function to
that describe by yourself regarding the felt & string rusting, and
increased friction on the Steinway A post of a month or so ago.  The 
other
pictures show the bar and the untuned from duplex.  These pianos have a
tunable rear duplex although the tuning I have encountered on them and 
the
141's is not tuned to conventional harmonics.

[The unusually large number of photos may be browsed by scrolling
down the page and clicking on the links at:]

http://tinyurl.com/4hbvl

and

http://tinyurl.com/6hxef


Direct ptg.org URLs:

https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/2004-September/000166.html

and

https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/files/2004-September/000167.html