Mathushek/ impending accident case

[gordon stelter]

    Haha! Thanks for the Mathushek info! 
     ( Description of thick soundboard ). 
     I STILL "don't buy" some of the ideas propounded
on the list! I just tuned that 1904 Ivers and Pond
with the wide, flat ribs ( allegedly
compression-crowned, hence "no good" according tolist
"experts" ) and it is the BEST preserved, most
resonant, amazing old piano I have ever heard!!!!!! I
don't know exactly what's wrong with these guys, but
something's "funny", for sure......
     My insurance case goes to court at the end of
February, against the lawyer who hit me over 4 years
ago, injuring my neck and causing me to become
homeless. Your descrription of the Kimball-for-2
Steinways and a  Chickering trade is a VERY important
part of my claim, as I would have availed myself of
this offer, had I been physically able.
     The "opposition" though ( State Farm ) is trying
to have it barred from testimony because there is no
accompanying letter regarding your qualifications as 
piano technician, and pianistic expert, in general! 
Apparently, such an accompanying document is
necessary, under Georgia Law.
     I know that you are very busy recovering from
youir recent disaster, and hope all is going well. But
if you could possibly write such a description of your
qualifications and, perhaps, even get it notarized,
that would be EXTREMELY helpful to my case, and I
would be forever grateful.
   Thanks!
     G


P.S. The case goes to court February 27, so "the
sooner the better", if at all possible, please.


P.P.S. I have designed an unusual soundboard based on
the principals that WE believe in, and I truly believe
that it will be quite amazingly resonant! I'll send
you full details after this court stuff is over. It
may be patentable, too, and you can "get in on this",
if you want.

--- Robin Hufford <hufford1@airmail.net> wrote:

> Hello Steve,
>       There are two differing, older models of
> Mathushek uprights, from the
> 1880 and 1890 -1920 period, at least, that I am
> aware of.  I am curious to
> know which you have.  These two pianos also have two
> different actions.
> One the first version, with the very elaborate
> action Thump describes has
> ribs radiating from a focal point under the highest
> treble.   The tone on
> this piano, although powerful, is not compelling
> interesting to my ear,
> although still very nice.
>      The second piano, though, has an extremely
> musical sound, one of the
> very best and, when people remark on this piano they
> usually comment on the
> sound.  The action in this piano, which itself
> succeeded the first in
> production, in the mid 1890's,  is a much more
> conventional action, that
> is, greatly simplified of the elaborate features
> decribed by Thump, which
> exist on its predecessor, and, are, as he says, a
> thing of amazement.  This
> action is much, much, more likely the normal action
> found on the
> high-quality pianos of the period.
>      I have rebuilt one of each model and can tell
> you they are wonderful
> pianos.
>      The second version has - something frequently
> found with old Mat's
> pianos, although, actually, I think the old guy was
> probably already dead
> by the time his company came up with this
> innovation, a distinctive
> soundboard patented under the name "Duplex"
> soundingboard.  To a glance
> from the front of the piano the board appears
> entirely conventional but
> this is not the case.  In reality it is 3/4 of an
> inch thick throughout,
> lacks ribs, and apparently was built with no crown. 
> Technicians say such a
> thing cannot be, or work, yet they should hear the
> piano before
> commentary.  Afterwards, they, no doubt, will think
> otherwise.
>      Knowing of this design, and being as impressed
> as I was with the sound
> upon rebuilding, I showed the piano to 8 or 9
> technicians without telling
> them of the unique features of the board.  Some,
> being pianists were asked
> then to play, and all were asked to comment on the
> sound.  All thought the
> piano remarkable, one of the best they had ever
> heard.  About half thought
> it was the best sounding upright they had ever
> heard.  There were several
> RPT's among this group, and several accomplished
> rebuilders:  none detected
> anything amiss, and all were incredulous on being
> told the board lacked
> ribs and insisted on being shown the back of the
> board and its absence of
> ribbing.
>      I was, however, aware of one difficulty which
> the piano had, although
> none detected this:  a relative difficulty when
> compared to more
> conventional boards, of obtain fff at the attack on
> a hard blow.  This was
> something I had attempted to rectify with various
> tone-building techniques
> which had brought the piano to an acceptable range
> in this regard, although
> I would have wished for somewhat more.  Altogether
> the two pianos are a
> most interesting contrast, one, intensely highly
> ribbed, particularly in
> the treble, the other lacking ribs at all.
>      I believe Mathusek did not work at Steinway as
> his company predates
> theirs, I think.  However, they took many design
> features from his ideas, I
> think, although I may be wrong on this.
> Regards, Robin Hufford
> 
> > I was zipping through the e-mails when I noticed
> one of my clients
> > wanted me to bid on repairing an old Mathushek
> upright.  Haven't worked
> > on one in decades.  Wouldn't you know, this same
> day I looked at the
> > digest over the last two days and this same
> Mathushek is up for
> > discussion.  Save the parts, I may need a few.
> > Steve Ganz
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info:
> https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info:
> https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com