FUJAN TUNING LEVER vs FAULK

[Mark Purney]

PJR wrote:
> I'm tossed between buying a Fujan or a Faulk carbon fiber hammer.  
> Does anyone own both that could give an unbiased comparison between 
> the two?
>
> Phil Ryan

I had the same question a few months ago. It seemed that nobody owned 
both, so I had to see for myself, and now I use both of them regularly. 
I prefer the Fujan for uprights and for pianos with "difficult" pins, 
because of the extra rigidity and increased leverage. But for higher 
quality grands with consistent and compliant tuning pins, I often prefer 
the way the Faulk feels on the pins, and also the balance when moving 
between pins (because it's shorter, so the mass of the head does not 
feel as heavy). If you talk to people who own either tool, you will tend 
to hear nothing but positive comments. My opinion is that if you buy 
either one, you will be very happy. If you buy both of them, you will be 
twice as happy (once you do enough extra tunings to pay for both of 
them, that is). To recommend one over the other is next to impossible, 
but I will suggest this: If the majority of your tunings are uprights 
and lower-quality pianos, the Fujan may serve you better. If you service 
mostly grand pianos, the Faulk might be the one to go with. If you're 
about half and half, maybe this list of pros and cons will help:

Fujan Pros:
Most rigid shaft of any tuning hammer on the market
Quickly change head angle (requires extra parts)
Quickly change out different shaft lengths (requires extra shafts)

Fujan Cons:
More expensive
Currently, only accepts Watanabe tips

Faulk Pros:
Traditional, elegant shape and size is more appealing to some
Accepts both Watanabe and Jahn tips with optional adapter
Less expensive

Faulk Cons
Not as rigid as Fujan (although much more rigid than any metal-shafted 
tuning hammer)
Length and head angle are fixed