Discussion: View Thread

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

Paul,
Don't guess or go by a "standard." Measure. String height minus shank center height. It isn't that hard. Less than 5 minutes. There is no guarantee the piano is made to a standard spec in terms of string height, especially with Baldwin manufacturing techniques.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

This is from Jim Busby:

Paul,

Ditto what Fred said. I used to go by charts but found that many piano makers apparently don't.

Fred and all, today I found a piano that has a 5/16" string height difference in the bass from #1 to #25 (It's a Pramberger 208). So... do you bore off the one side, or the other, or split the difference? I don't know how my student did it, but he graduated the boring from 1 to 25 so it is a perfect line and fits the string heights.

Hmmmm.... So much for charts. And, how would you do it? I've never found one with such a difference, but I usually round to the middle. (My student is an engineer so it figures he'd find a way.) Any thoughts?

Jim Busby
BYU

I prefer to measure in metric.  5/16 = pretty much 8mm.

I suspect the two string unison measurements only vary about 2mm.  So that leaves about 6mm to spread over probably 10 single string notes.  I find it to be common when boring.

-------------------------------------------
Tim Coates
Sioux Falls SD
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 14:10
From: Keith Kopp
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This is from Jim Busby:

Paul,

Ditto what Fred said. I used to go by charts but found that many piano makers apparently don't.

Fred and all, today I found a piano that has a 5/16" string height difference in the bass from #1 to #25 (It's a Pramberger 208). So... do you bore off the one side, or the other, or split the difference? I don't know how my student did it, but he graduated the boring from 1 to 25 so it is a perfect line and fits the string heights.

Hmmmm.... So much for charts. And, how would you do it? I've never found one with such a difference, but I usually round to the middle. (My student is an engineer so it figures he'd find a way.) Any thoughts?

Jim Busby
BYU

Jim,

Maybe it's just my sleep deprivation talking, but... If there is a substantial difference from one end of a section to another, and you calculate the boring distance from the strike point (at each end), add a fixed tail length (say, 1", for instance), mark the tail lengths on on hammers whose tails are longer-than-needed to begin with, cut (e. g., clamped together, on a band saw) and sand them to length, then bore off the tail (as opposed to off of the stoke point, 1"' in this case), and "Bob's your uncle!" Or am I missing something? (wouldn't be the first time :-)

-------------------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 14:10
From: Keith Kopp
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This is from Jim Busby:

Paul,

Ditto what Fred said. I used to go by charts but found that many piano makers apparently don't.

Fred and all, today I found a piano that has a 5/16" string height difference in the bass from #1 to #25 (It's a Pramberger 208). So... do you bore off the one side, or the other, or split the difference? I don't know how my student did it, but he graduated the boring from 1 to 25 so it is a perfect line and fits the string heights.

Hmmmm.... So much for charts. And, how would you do it? I've never found one with such a difference, but I usually round to the middle. (My student is an engineer so it figures he'd find a way.) Any thoughts?

Jim Busby
BYU

Hi Alan,

My main point is to not trust charts, but I really like your method! Never really did it that way, but it's probably the only way to do it. Usually it's only an 1/8th of so I just split it. This piano is nuts.

Thanks!
JIm
-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 00:09
From: Alan Eder
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Jim,

Maybe it's just my sleep deprivation talking, but... If there is a substantial difference from one end of a section to another, and you calculate the boring distance from the strike point (at each end), add a fixed tail length (say, 1", for instance), mark the tail lengths on on hammers whose tails are longer-than-needed to begin with, cut (e. g., clamped together, on a band saw) and sand them to length, then bore off the tail (as opposed to off of the stoke point, 1"' in this case), and "Bob's your uncle!" Or am I missing something? (wouldn't be the first time :-)

-------------------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 14:10
From: Keith Kopp
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This is from Jim Busby:

Paul,

Ditto what Fred said. I used to go by charts but found that many piano makers apparently don't.

Fred and all, today I found a piano that has a 5/16" string height difference in the bass from #1 to #25 (It's a Pramberger 208). So... do you bore off the one side, or the other, or split the difference? I don't know how my student did it, but he graduated the boring from 1 to 25 so it is a perfect line and fits the string heights.

Hmmmm.... So much for charts. And, how would you do it? I've never found one with such a difference, but I usually round to the middle. (My student is an engineer so it figures he'd find a way.) Any thoughts?

Jim Busby
BYU

Paul, It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck! ------------------------------------------- Andrew Saderman Forest Hills NY 718-263-6508 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT . ------------------------------------------- Good afternoon; Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room. Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says. It's just messed up and not regulatable. I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right. Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move! The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms. I think I just found a big project. Thanks Paul ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

I have often wondered about bore distance for Baldwin grands with accujust. The manufacturing method floated the plate relative to the bridge top, so it could be at a number of possible levels depending on crown of that particular board, etc. The basis was the vertically laminated bridge, without a cap, which was machined with a router-like tool (couldn't be done with a chisel). The top surface of the bridge was a given, and wasn't adjusted. So you started with that (wherever the board and its crown placed it), used the plate screws to set plate height relative to the bridge by some procedure, then adjusted back bearing on the accujust pins. 

Where did that leave string height from the key bed? Seems like it could vary quite a bit. And so who knew whether hammer bore would be right for that instrument? I don't think they measured and custom bored. The whole process was designed to reduce steps, make them more efficient. Maybe someone has more intimate knowledge of how they did these things.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Paul -
Supply some actual DW/UP readings, but also describe how you're taking them.  I've seen a few different protocols (Mario I starts the DW reading with key slightly depressed but doesn't knock rail to move it along; Stanwood would (originally) tap rail a bit... readings can be subject to interpretation, especially with friction from multiple sources)
You wouldn't start moving capstans without knowing a lot more about what you have there.  Friction or mass?

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

David,  I needed to put the piano back for now for the students.  I will indeed go back to it soon for actual numbers.  I tend to weigh ala Stanwood either bumping the rail or as Steve Brady showed me bumping the regulation table a bit; but I do this gingerly. whacking it would probably not get good numbers. I put the weights right over the key pins or a tiny bit toward the end.  I'm sure there are many ways to do it. If the key doesn't go down with one bump, then I go up a gram.

Although I can't say for sure right now, I'm leaning toward mass.  I'll get back to you on that one.

Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 09:33
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Paul -
Supply some actual DW/UP readings, but also describe how you're taking them.  I've seen a few different protocols (Mario I starts the DW reading with key slightly depressed but doesn't knock rail to move it along; Stanwood would (originally) tap rail a bit... readings can be subject to interpretation, especially with friction from multiple sources)
You wouldn't start moving capstans without knowing a lot more about what you have there.  Friction or mass?

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Mass is always first choice, when the hammers have been replaced. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the new hammers are heavier than the originals, simply because hammers in general have been getting heavier over the past few decades (well, over the past 300 years really). So the first thing to look at is whether there is mass available to remove, by arcing tails as a first step, and on from there, if you are keeping the hammers. I wouldn't go changing geometry to suit some hammers I hadn't chosen without a pretty good reason to do so.




Original Message------

David,  I needed to put the piano back for now for the students.  I will indeed go back to it soon for actual numbers.  I tend to weigh ala Stanwood either bumping the rail or as Steve Brady showed me bumping the regulation table a bit; but I do this gingerly. whacking it would probably not get good numbers. I put the weights right over the key pins or a tiny bit toward the end.  I'm sure there are many ways to do it. If the key doesn't go down with one bump, then I go up a gram.

Although I can't say for sure right now, I'm leaning toward mass.  I'll get back to you on that one.

Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 09:33
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Paul -
Supply some actual DW/UP readings, but also describe how you're taking them.  I've seen a few different protocols (Mario I starts the DW reading with key slightly depressed but doesn't knock rail to move it along; Stanwood would (originally) tap rail a bit... readings can be subject to interpretation, especially with friction from multiple sources)
You wouldn't start moving capstans without knowing a lot more about what you have there.  Friction or mass?

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Just a little addition: the geometry being described - needing 0.40" dip for a 1 3/4" blow - means you are already near the edge of the low end of feasible action ratios. Any change in geometry to lighten touch will mean even more dip and/or less blow. So you need to deal with mass, one way or another. Adding key leads isn't a sin, and if you want you can to it temporarily, using jiffy leads cut in half. You can screw them to the bottom of the keys, between the rails. Or, I suppose, Touch Rail (not something I have done). But lighter hammers would be my ultimate choice (when you can get around to it).

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 11:35
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Mass is always first choice, when the hammers have been replaced. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the new hammers are heavier than the originals, simply because hammers in general have been getting heavier over the past few decades (well, over the past 300 years really). So the first thing to look at is whether there is mass available to remove, by arcing tails as a first step, and on from there, if you are keeping the hammers. I wouldn't go changing geometry to suit some hammers I hadn't chosen without a pretty good reason to do so.

Regards,

Fred Sturm

fssturm@unm.edu

http://fredsturm.net

"A mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." Plutarch

Hi, Paul.  You could change out the capstans without moving their location, to WNG capstans.  I weighed them for a comparison, and they weigh about a gram and a half, compared to the capstans I changed out at about 4 grams each.  If the action ratio is high, you might just lose some of the downweight by doing just that much.  Easy, and fast weight reduction.

-------------------------------------------
Clark A. Sprague, RPT
Bowling Green, OH
www.clarkspianoservice.com
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

In a pinch, if you have never tried the WNG composite capstans, this would be a great opportunity. They are 1/4 the weight of regular capstans, 1.5 grams versus 6, and will reduce that touchweight by 5-10 grams. The only drawback is their color makes regulation a bit difficult but I think you will get use to it. ------------------------------------------- Andrew Saderman Forest Hills NY 718-263-6508 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Hi again; I've now dealt with most of the problems. The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that. Now the DW/UW is quite high still. I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble. It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's? I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child. If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears. Thanks Paul ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44 From: David Skolnik Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Hey Paul, I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread. To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information. The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning. Have you measured friction on any of them? (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.) You said: They have other problems too. What problems? From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced. If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating. Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else. Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet. ------------------------------------------- David Skolnik Hastings-on-Hudson NY 914-231-7565 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind... The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example). The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around. It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students! I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it! What would you guys do? At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38 From: David Skolnik Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers. Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion. I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them. Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned. ------------------------------------------- David Skolnik Hastings-on-Hudson NY 914-231-7565 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Hi Andrew, The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands. I think that's too much too. Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style". They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing. I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!) Keep the ideas coming all y'all. Paul ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30 From: Andrew Saderman Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Paul, It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck! ------------------------------------------- Andrew Saderman Forest Hills NY 718-263-6508 -------------------------------------------

WNG sounds like a great idea. Quick and painless.  Thanks for the tips!

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 06:31
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance


In a pinch, if you have never tried the WNG composite capstans, this would be a great opportunity. They are 1/4 the weight of regular capstans, 1.5 grams versus 6, and will reduce that touchweight by 5-10 grams. The only drawback is their color makes regulation a bit difficult but I think you will get use to it.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Hold on there y'all.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, or  that this wouldn't be another tool in your bag of options, but you haven't yet taken the thorough measurements to know what you're actually dealing with.  AND, saying, or writing that something is "quick and painless" is the fastest way to make it not so.  Not sure what they cost, but you've conveyed the sense that almost everything you spend has to be justified and approved by the Dean, so, in that case, you'd want to be pretty sure that this would make a key difference. (Yeah, I said 'key').  Also, I'm not sure I buy Andy's math... nothing personal Andy.  I'm without a keyboard in the shop at the moment to test it but I'll try it out later this morning.
-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 07:50
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

WNG sounds like a great idea. Quick and painless.  Thanks for the tips!

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 06:31
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance


In a pinch, if you have never tried the WNG composite capstans, this would be a great opportunity. They are 1/4 the weight of regular capstans, 1.5 grams versus 6, and will reduce that touchweight by 5-10 grams. The only drawback is their color makes regulation a bit difficult but I think you will get use to it.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

A typical key ratio is around 2:1. The front of the key moves twice the distance vs. the capstan.
Therefore the weight reduction of the capstan has to be divided by 2, so you only gain 2.25 grams of down weight reduction, not 4.5 grams.(6gr-1.5gr)/2 = 2.25 grams.

I think that is hardly worth the expense of the capstans. If the existing capstans are damaged, or you plan to move them in the future, then the WNG capstans are a great idea.

-------------------------------------------
Jerry Cohen, RPT
NJ Chapter
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 08:27
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hold on there y'all.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, or  that this wouldn't be another tool in your bag of options, but you haven't yet taken the thorough measurements to know what you're actually dealing with.  AND, saying, or writing that something is "quick and painless" is the fastest way to make it not so.  Not sure what they cost, but you've conveyed the sense that almost everything you spend has to be justified and approved by the Dean, so, in that case, you'd want to be pretty sure that this would make a key difference. (Yeah, I said 'key').  Also, I'm not sure I buy Andy's math... nothing personal Andy.  I'm without a keyboard in the shop at the moment to test it but I'll try it out later this morning.
-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 07:50
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

WNG sounds like a great idea. Quick and painless.  Thanks for the tips!

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 06:31
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance


In a pinch, if you have never tried the WNG composite capstans, this would be a great opportunity. They are 1/4 the weight of regular capstans, 1.5 grams versus 6, and will reduce that touchweight by 5-10 grams. The only drawback is their color makes regulation a bit difficult but I think you will get use to it.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Trust me David, I have installed a couple of sets and tested both types of capstans and consistently have come up with a 1/4 differential of weight.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 08:27
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hold on there y'all.  I'm not saying it's a bad idea, or  that this wouldn't be another tool in your bag of options, but you haven't yet taken the thorough measurements to know what you're actually dealing with.  AND, saying, or writing that something is "quick and painless" is the fastest way to make it not so.  Not sure what they cost, but you've conveyed the sense that almost everything you spend has to be justified and approved by the Dean, so, in that case, you'd want to be pretty sure that this would make a key difference. (Yeah, I said 'key').  Also, I'm not sure I buy Andy's math... nothing personal Andy.  I'm without a keyboard in the shop at the moment to test it but I'll try it out later this morning.
-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 07:50
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

WNG sounds like a great idea. Quick and painless.  Thanks for the tips!

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-19-2014 06:31
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance


In a pinch, if you have never tried the WNG composite capstans, this would be a great opportunity. They are 1/4 the weight of regular capstans, 1.5 grams versus 6, and will reduce that touchweight by 5-10 grams. The only drawback is their color makes regulation a bit difficult but I think you will get use to it.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Try David Stanwood's technique cutting the balance rail punching to lower the key ratio.
Cut one natural and one sharp punching and regulate to see if the function is acceptable.
Cheap to do and easy to reverse.

-------------------------------------------
Ed Sutton
Editor
Piano Technicians Journal
ed440@me.com
704-536-7926
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-18-2014 08:46
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi again;

I've now dealt with most of the problems.  The flanges are much freer just with a little CLP, some freed up with some heat, and re-pinning about a dozen or more flanges, straightened up the hammers (they were ALL leaning to the right), regulated everything from scratch, Flitzed and lubed all the balance rail and front rail pins, Tefloned the knuckles, made the wippens "work" for now other than a couple that just would not let me raise the lever to get it clear of the tops of the jacks (I found a couple spares in the drawers) and compromised the blow distance to just over 1-3/4". Key-dip is .400, sharps are 1/2" above the naturals and all the other regular stuffs like that.

Now the DW/UW is quite high still.  I get low 60's in the bass and upper 50's in the treble.  It's heavier than I like, but without moving the capstans, what would I do to lessen the weight by 5-10g's?  I think I'm going to move on to the twin next door and see if I can at least improve the other problem child.

If you have further suggestions I may have overlooked, I'm all ears.

Thanks
Paul



-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-17-2014 00:44
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hey Paul,
I think it's cool the way we continue to link elements of this thread with the extensive discussion on pinning and bushings from the "pre-hung' thread.  
To offer any intelligent perspective on the way in which to proceed with the reps, you'd need to provide more specific information.  The tight flange pinning can likely be dealt with without resorting to repinning.  Have you measured friction on any of them?  (Can't remember if you've gotten a gauge yet.)
You said: 
They have other problems too. 
What problems?

From a cost/redundancy perspective, it's one thing to hang a new set of hammers on old shanks, only to discover, soon after, that the shanks need to be replaced.  If the reps can be made functional, you're unlikely to need to replace them, but if so, it's just a matter of re-regulating.

Not getting a clear picture yet about whether you have a budget to work with and a plan, or are having to go to the Dean for approval for each initiative, but that's something else.  Mostly, I'm glad no one's going after you. Yet.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind...

The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example).  The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around.  It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students!  I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it!

What would you guys do?  At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. 

-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38
From: David Skolnik
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. 

Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers.  Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion.

I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them.  

Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned.

-------------------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Andrew,

The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands.  I think that's too much too.  Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style".  They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing.

I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!)

Keep the ideas coming all y'all.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30
From: Andrew Saderman
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance



Paul,
It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Saderman
Forest Hills NY
718-263-6508
-------------------------------------------

Paul, Aside from tight pinning on the reps, how is everything else? The springs, worn heal, loose regulating buttons, etc.? Since repetitions are the most expensive set to replace, I usually consider all the parameters. If pinning is truly the only issue, then it's more "economical" to the school of course to repin should you have the time. Just out of curiosity, the problem seems to affect regulation, turning capstans so low, could you not tip the back stack down to achieve the proper strike distance? The only issue is that it will affect the jack alignment with the knuckle but maybe not too terribly. Food for thought. ------------------------------------------- Andrew Saderman Forest Hills NY 718-263-6508 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 10:49 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance OK, I'll leave him out of it and deal with the "problem child" he left behind... The more I'm looking at this mess, the more I'm leaning toward rebuilding the entire stack. The reps are really bad, the flange pinning is super tight on all of them (giving more than 70g dw for example). The unfortunate thing is, the piano's twin is right next door. I looked, and same problems all around. It's no wonder these two pianos are the last to be chosen and signed up for by the students! I now see that 2" bore is actually fine on this piano and sadly one of the few things right with it! What would you guys do? At least new ham/shanks? New reps or re-pin the whole set? They have other problems too. ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 10:38 From: David Skolnik Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Well, y'all (and that's the royal y'all) might want to tread lightly on what you attribute to the previous tech, at least in print, as, whether you know the history or not, it can venture into tricky karma. Maybe the problem was due to a set of pre-hung replacement hammers. Just kidding, but, in fact, were such a set to have been available, it wouldn't have taken into account the kind of string height irregularities that have been referenced in this discussion. I would doublecheck the condition of those shanks, carefully, as you are about to put new hammers on them. Lastly, if you were too busy to bore or hang a set for the Steinway D, I don't see you having the idle time to 'pop, plug & bore' that Andy mentioned. ------------------------------------------- David Skolnik Hastings-on-Hudson NY 914-231-7565 -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 07:44 From: Paul Williams Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Hi Andrew, The Potter book states 1-7/8" for all Baldwin grands. I think that's too much too. Steinway's are 1-3/4 for everything except C's and D's, but of course, that's Steinway, not Baldwin. I don't know what the previous tech was thinking on this one. The hammers are marginal, and the Dean knows there will be lots of re-doing lots of goofs around here, so he won't mind if I started over on this one. I found another identical Baldwin with the same problem. I'm not sure what the hammers are, but have mahogany with a very thin purple felt core. Shanks are pretty standard Baldwin "style". They are in nice shape, so they don't need replacing. I will fill y'all in as I dive further into the project. (Oh dear, southern is starting to come out in me!) Keep the ideas coming all y'all. Paul ------------------------------------------- Paul T. Williams RPT Director of Piano Services School of Music 813 Assembly St University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 09-16-2014 06:30 From: Andrew Saderman Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance Paul, It sounds like 1 7/8 is a bit far for blow distance on an L. My general rule of thumb is 7' and 9' are set at 1 7/8 and everything else at 1 3/4. Of course to be really scientific about it, one probably should check string height in at least 4 places to see if there any unusual variances. Subtract the stack height, hammer center to keybed, and you get your bore distance. The spread is reasonable and so does the hammer center to knuckle core. Are the hammers in bad shape? Then I suppose it's a matter of getting a new set with the correct bore distance. If they're in pretty good shape, and the department may not want to spend the funds, you may have to pop, plug, and redrill. I don't envy you that task. Good luck! ------------------------------------------- Andrew Saderman Forest Hills NY 718-263-6508 -------------------------------------------

Hi Paul,

I'm attaching a few photos of the relevant specifications, found in Baldwin's mid-1990's Piano Service Manual.  I also have their parts price list dated 11/30/95.  Let me know if you want the part # for their L hammer set ($203.86) and a set of shanks/flanges ($145.42).

Cheers,
Zeno

-------------------------------------------
Zeno Wood
Brooklyn, NY
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

Thanks Zeno!
I have a meeting with the Dean tomorrow before lunchtime. We'll probably need the reps too.  2 pianos worth as well.  Wish me luck in the meeting.

Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 12:00
From: Zeno Wood
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Hi Paul,

I'm attaching a few photos of the relevant specifications, found in Baldwin's mid-1990's Piano Service Manual.  I also have their parts price list dated 11/30/95.  Let me know if you want the part # for their L hammer set ($203.86) and a set of shanks/flanges ($145.42).

Cheers,
Zeno

-------------------------------------------
Zeno Wood
Brooklyn, NY
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

It doesn't give bass bore.

-------------------------------------------
Regards,

Jon Page

If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all.  I have the following string heights now measured:

72-88   =  7-5/8"
54-71   =  7-5/8"
21-53   =  7-11/16  to 7-23/32"
1-20     =  7-13/16 to  7-15/16"

Center of shank (I measured bottom of key frame to center of hammer shank flange pin on #88)
5-3/4"
That would make the bore distance at #88=  1-7/8" ; which is NOT on the current hammers. They are at 2" (in the treble) 2-5/16" is the bore on #1.

It is impossible to get the blow distance all the way to 1-7/8" as stated both in the Baldwin manual from Zeno and the Potter book. At 1-3/4 blow, the hammers are resting on the hammer rest rail and the rail is all the way down sitting on the top of the wippen flange. 

After getting rid of the ridiculously low over turned capstans, now I have an insane key height!  It's right on 2.5" in the middle and then dips a bit in the 3rd section and then soars up 1/8" to #88. The bass goes up a little bit (like 1/16")  What is up with that???   I have never seen this in my 25 years.  Is it a practical joke the other guy left for me to figure out or what?

I'll keep regulating and see where it ends up and give more reports...I'm sure I'll find more discrepancies!


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 12:35
From: Jon Page
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

It doesn't give bass bore.

-------------------------------------------
Regards,

Jon Page

Paul: "If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all."

That's the thing, Baldwin and Steinway both are (or were) inconsistent in placing the plate in reference to the keybed, meaning the string height varied a fair amount. I have seen over 5 mm difference in Steinway (the worst being from the CBS days). 5 mm difference in bore distance is HUGE. I haven't done or measured many Baldwin grands - and here I am thinking mostly of the accujust era - but have puzzled over just exactly how they set up their production. I wish I had known more when I toured their grand factory in 1980. All the stuff about aligning strings/bridges by adjusting the plate made sense, but I wasn't really aware of the hammer bore distance aspect of things. But maybe the front of the plate was precisely indexed to the pinblock, which was precisely indexed to the keybed. In that case, the somewhat random nature of the bridge height (due to variation in crown), and the associated up/down adjustment of the back of the plate wouldn't change the string height all that much.

It's not easy to come up with a procedure to set string height to a tight spec in production.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 13:29
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all.  I have the following string heights now measured:

72-88   =  7-5/8"
54-71   =  7-5/8"
21-53   =  7-11/16  to 7-23/32"
1-20     =  7-13/16 to  7-15/16"

Center of shank (I measured bottom of key frame to center of hammer shank flange pin on #88)
5-3/4"
That would make the bore distance at #88=  1-7/8" ; which is NOT on the current hammers. They are at 2" (in the treble) 2-5/16" is the bore on #1.

It is impossible to get the blow distance all the way to 1-7/8" as stated both in the Baldwin manual from Zeno and the Potter book. At 1-3/4 blow, the hammers are resting on the hammer rest rail and the rail is all the way down sitting on the top of the wippen flange. 

After getting rid of the ridiculously low over turned capstans, now I have an insane key height!  It's right on 2.5" in the middle and then dips a bit in the 3rd section and then soars up 1/8" to #88. The bass goes up a little bit (like 1/16")  What is up with that???   I have never seen this in my 25 years.  Is it a practical joke the other guy left for me to figure out or what?

I'll keep regulating and see where it ends up and give more reports...I'm sure I'll find more discrepancies!


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

Fred,

Getting back to my conundrum about the 5/16" difference in the string height in the bass, I'm wondering how did that happen? I have also seen big differences in plate height as you mentioned below, but what about this "tilt" in one section? I didn't put a straight edge on the keybed, but it didn't seem weird. Any thoughts?

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 15:30
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Paul: "If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all."

That's the thing, Baldwin and Steinway both are (or were) inconsistent in placing the plate in reference to the keybed, meaning the string height varied a fair amount. I have seen over 5 mm difference in Steinway (the worst being from the CBS days). 5 mm difference in bore distance is HUGE. I haven't done or measured many Baldwin grands - and here I am thinking mostly of the accujust era - but have puzzled over just exactly how they set up their production. I wish I had known more when I toured their grand factory in 1980. All the stuff about aligning strings/bridges by adjusting the plate made sense, but I wasn't really aware of the hammer bore distance aspect of things. But maybe the front of the plate was precisely indexed to the pinblock, which was precisely indexed to the keybed. In that case, the somewhat random nature of the bridge height (due to variation in crown), and the associated up/down adjustment of the back of the plate wouldn't change the string height all that much.

It's not easy to come up with a procedure to set string height to a tight spec in production.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 13:29
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all.  I have the following string heights now measured:

72-88   =  7-5/8"
54-71   =  7-5/8"
21-53   =  7-11/16  to 7-23/32"
1-20     =  7-13/16 to  7-15/16"

Center of shank (I measured bottom of key frame to center of hammer shank flange pin on #88)
5-3/4"
That would make the bore distance at #88=  1-7/8" ; which is NOT on the current hammers. They are at 2" (in the treble) 2-5/16" is the bore on #1.

It is impossible to get the blow distance all the way to 1-7/8" as stated both in the Baldwin manual from Zeno and the Potter book. At 1-3/4 blow, the hammers are resting on the hammer rest rail and the rail is all the way down sitting on the top of the wippen flange. 

After getting rid of the ridiculously low over turned capstans, now I have an insane key height!  It's right on 2.5" in the middle and then dips a bit in the 3rd section and then soars up 1/8" to #88. The bass goes up a little bit (like 1/16")  What is up with that???   I have never seen this in my 25 years.  Is it a practical joke the other guy left for me to figure out or what?

I'll keep regulating and see where it ends up and give more reports...I'm sure I'll find more discrepancies!


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

Jim,


Original Message------

Fred,

Getting back to my conundrum about the 5/16" difference in the string height in the bass, I'm wondering how did that happen? I have also seen big differences in plate height as you mentioned below, but what about this "tilt" in one section? I didn't put a straight edge on the keybed, but it didn't seem weird. Any thoughts?

Jim

-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 15:30
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

Paul: "If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all."

That's the thing, Baldwin and Steinway both are (or were) inconsistent in placing the plate in reference to the keybed, meaning the string height varied a fair amount. I have seen over 5 mm difference in Steinway (the worst being from the CBS days). 5 mm difference in bore distance is HUGE. I haven't done or measured many Baldwin grands - and here I am thinking mostly of the accujust era - but have puzzled over just exactly how they set up their production. I wish I had known more when I toured their grand factory in 1980. All the stuff about aligning strings/bridges by adjusting the plate made sense, but I wasn't really aware of the hammer bore distance aspect of things. But maybe the front of the plate was precisely indexed to the pinblock, which was precisely indexed to the keybed. In that case, the somewhat random nature of the bridge height (due to variation in crown), and the associated up/down adjustment of the back of the plate wouldn't change the string height all that much.

It's not easy to come up with a procedure to set string height to a tight spec in production.

-------------------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
http://fredsturm.net
"When I smell a flower, I don't think about how it was cultivated. I like to listen to music the same way." -Federico Mompou
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 13:29
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

If Fred's thinking is correct, (and as I ponder his comment while trying different things on this piano), then how can Baldwin indeed have a strict standard on bore distance at all.  I have the following string heights now measured:

72-88   =  7-5/8"
54-71   =  7-5/8"
21-53   =  7-11/16  to 7-23/32"
1-20     =  7-13/16 to  7-15/16"

Center of shank (I measured bottom of key frame to center of hammer shank flange pin on #88)
5-3/4"
That would make the bore distance at #88=  1-7/8" ; which is NOT on the current hammers. They are at 2" (in the treble) 2-5/16" is the bore on #1.

It is impossible to get the blow distance all the way to 1-7/8" as stated both in the Baldwin manual from Zeno and the Potter book. At 1-3/4 blow, the hammers are resting on the hammer rest rail and the rail is all the way down sitting on the top of the wippen flange. 

After getting rid of the ridiculously low over turned capstans, now I have an insane key height!  It's right on 2.5" in the middle and then dips a bit in the 3rd section and then soars up 1/8" to #88. The bass goes up a little bit (like 1/16")  What is up with that???   I have never seen this in my 25 years.  Is it a practical joke the other guy left for me to figure out or what?

I'll keep regulating and see where it ends up and give more reports...I'm sure I'll find more discrepancies!


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

No.

-------------------------------------------
Zeno Wood
Brooklyn, NY
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 12:35
From: Jon Page
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

It doesn't give bass bore.

-------------------------------------------
Regards,

Jon Page

I will be tackling my first grand hammer boring job in the near future.  My intention is to measure string height and hammer flange center pin height, and use these figures to arrive at a bore length that will result in the shank being parallel to the string plane somewhere about mid-point in the life of the hammer.  By this, I mean that the hammer will be in a position to slightly understrike when new, and to be slightly overstriking several filings in, as it approaches the end of its useful life.  I recognize that string height will not be perfectly consistent across sections, so I'll have to choose my compromises as I come to a bore distance spec.  Does this approach seem to make sense? 

-------------------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-721-9699
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------

Hi Floyd,

Richard Davenport taught a class on hammer hanging (or was it regulation?) and showed the folly of boring so the hammer understrikes when new. The notion that it will be better in the future after several filings may be right, but when the hammers are new and you've got problems, that ain't good. In regulation, understriking makes a good regulation difficult to achieve. I won't try to summarize the whole 90 minutes into a few paragraphs, but bore at 90 degrees, and when it goes to slightly over (91), the regulation will still be good. 89 degrees, not so much.

Jim


-------------------------------------------
James Busby
Mt Pleasant UT
801-422-3400
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2014 14:39
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

I will be tackling my first grand hammer boring job in the near future.  My intention is to measure string height and hammer flange center pin height, and use these figures to arrive at a bore length that will result in the shank being parallel to the string plane somewhere about mid-point in the life of the hammer.  By this, I mean that the hammer will be in a position to slightly understrike when new, and to be slightly overstriking several filings in, as it approaches the end of its useful life.  I recognize that string height will not be perfectly consistent across sections, so I'll have to choose my compromises as I come to a bore distance spec.  Does this approach seem to make sense? 

-------------------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-721-9699
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 09-15-2014 13:13
From: Paul Williams
Subject: '90's Baldwin L hammer bore distance

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Pianotech and CAUT .
-------------------------------------------
Good afternoon;

Does anyone know off the top of their head what standard hammer bore distance should be for a Baldwin L from the early '90's? I grabbed an action from one of the practice rooms this morning to look it over to see what I'll do with the whole piano in a few weeks when I have room.  Somebody has replaced the hammers/shanks in '2010 a scribble on the shanks says.  It's just messed up and not regulatable.  I've got 2" bore distance and that doesn't sound right.  Potter's regulation book says 1-7/8th blow distance which is what it's set at, but the capstans are down so far there is 1/16" play in the keys before the reps move!  The key's are at proper height. The reps are really ugly. Action spread is 113mm. Flange to knuckle is 16.5mm

It's no wonder this piano is the least signed up for in the practice rooms.  I think I just found a big project.

Thanks
Paul


-------------------------------------------
Paul T. Williams RPT
Director of Piano Services
School of Music
813 Assembly St
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
pwilliams@mozart.sc.edu
-------------------------------------------