[pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why?

[Delwin D Fandrich]

Add to your list the small Starr grand. And at least one small (5'2" or 5'3")
Knabe design.
 
ddf


  _____  

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Terry Farrell
Sent: August 08, 2009 4:24 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why?


Hey - those old Chickering quarter grands are one of the few pianos you'll not
need to install a fish in.......... (only pianos I've seen like that). 

Terry Farrell

On Aug 8, 2009, at 3:18 PM, William Truitt wrote:



Jim:

I think your question falls into the category of The Great Mysteries of
Chickering Piano Design.   As a rebuilder who has suffered at the rim of many a
Chickering, I too have a list of questions I want to ask dear old Jonas and his
descendants when I pass through the Pearly Gates.  Like, whassup with that four
piece pinblock?  And why do you hate me so much - what did I ever do to you - I
wasn't even born yet! 

I suspect it has more to do with a designer falling too much in love with his
ideas, no matter how bad they are.  If you have ever looked at patents for piano
design, you know he surely wasn't alone.

Look at the bright side!   At least it's not a Kranich and Bach. 

And yet I confess to a perverse affection for these old Chickerings.  I know
it's not good for me, but I can't stop myself. 

Will

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
jim ialeggio
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:21 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: [pianotech] Chickering's splayed actions...Why?
I've been wondering about the concept of the splayed grand action for a while.

Why would a manufacturer do this to themselves?  I don't mean this as a
pejorative question. Rather, I have to assume manufacturers were chasing after
some design goal with this splay, since angled shanks impose 88 different
geometries, further (and somewhat excessively) complicating an action's already
complicated collection of geometries.

Chickering did this for what(?)...75 years. It wasn't a one off trick. And
further, they had to pull it off in a production setting. So what might they
have been up to?

I can come up with a couple of guesses, but I wonder if any of you manufacturer
design guys have any insight on this question.

possibilities?:

1- the angled shank imposes a rotation on the hammer.  Is there a tonal effect
they were looking for, as the most aggressive angles were in the low tenor and
bass? Reduction of bass power so as not to overpower the treble?

2- Is it the vestigial remains of a previous way of thinking about action
design?

3- To my eye, the proportions of Chickering cases are often significantly more
graceful than the cases of other modern pianos.  Could the splay have allowed a
visual reduction in the required acreage needed to house an action?

The recent short thread on Brown actions brought this to mind.

Jim I     
  

-- 
grandpianosolutions.com (under construction)
Shirley, MA  (978) 425-9026


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20090810/feef5411/attachment.htm>