Jurgen and others, All due respect, but I can as easily see Julius banging his HEAD six feet under saying, "Now, why didn't I think of that?" Tough to guess how a dead man might think. I think there are reasons to go either way on an instrument like this. Both are justifiable, both are valid. I think of primary importance is to be very clear what your purpose is with an instrument like this, define your goals very clearly, and proceed with those goals always in mind. Regards, William R. Monroe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jurgen Goering" <pianoforte@pianofortesupply.com> To: "pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:36 PM Subject: Re: Soundboard rib question I have been biting my tongue on this one, then I re-read the original posting that said that any replies would be gratefully received.. so, you asked for it... Several others have questioned the sense in rebuilding and "improving" such an old heritage instrument. I'm firmly on that side of the fence. No matter how much it is "improved" or "butchered", (depending on your perspective,) such an instrument can never become something it never was. If someone wants a nice grand to play on, I suggest buying a contemporary piano. It is a slippery slope to change the rib design, just because we know more today than Blüthner did 150 years ago. Just because we CAN do it, doesn't mean we should. Where do you stop? Restring with Mapes International Gold wire and nickel plated Denro pins? Install a new back action and large dampers to finally stop that annoying after-ring? Fit a new action with Tokiwa Turbo Wippens? Imadegawa hammers perhaps?? Someone brought up the "oldest piano case in the world". (Some way to go down in history as a piano schmuck/tech!) I can see old Julius Blüthner now, pounding his fists onto the underside of his casket lid, shouting "no, NO", six feet under. It behooves us to learn from such mistakes. Such an instrument should stay in its original condition and live a collection where it is cared for and available for study. If it were a Steinway from the same year, there is no doubt Steinway would like to own it again. I would think the Blüthner family would be very interested in this specimen built by their great ancestor. Admittedly opinionated, Jurgen Goering Piano Forte Supply (250) 754-2440 info@pianofortesupply.com http://www.pianofortesupply.com On Jan 21, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Ric Brekne wrote: > ... > I have this first year production Bluthner straight strung that I am > getting ready to pull the soundboard out of. One of the options I am > considering is to alter the ribbing system on this. The instrument > measures about 195 cm, and has only 6 ribs. These are not very > substantial ribs at that... The ribs are wide and short and get taller > in the middle and have a _^ shape as opposed to a rounded shape.. > 28mm wide, 9mm tall along their sides, 14 mm tall in the center. > There is a long extra "rib" that runs roughly parallel to the bridge > and crosses over the cross grain ribs as well. It measures 55 mm wide > and 15mm tall. > > I suppose given the dimensions of the existing ribs this was a so > called <<natural>> crowned board in its time (ie compression with flat > ribs in a flat caul). My question is just how much beefing up of the > system is advisable ? I am assuming the amount of downward force on > the board was significantly less then present instruments have. I > want to try and keep close to the origional sound picture these > instruments had but at the same time I want the thing to be > structurally strengthened (if necessary) and try and create a bit > cleaner treble then fortes I have heard typically have. > > I could just pack the thing off to Bolduc and get a re-creation.... a > nice easy option I suppose... but before I do that I wanted to hear > what some of you think. > > I will be greatfull for any replies. > > Cheers > RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC