I agree. Scott, check out the texture of the artificial "buckskin" and I think you'll find it is the texture of petrified wood.
It wasn't Baldwin's fault. Suede was a huge fashion statement at the time they changed to "Corfam", so they got priced out of the natural leather market. The corfam worked okay until Dupont changed the formula without informing Baldwin. Once it all started to turn to rock, it was already in so many pianos that we see it over and over again to this day.
Go with ecsaine to replace it, put on with CA glue. A dab of white glue along with it helps the bond (see my article in 1997 -- October? to see how this works.) Opinion varies over whether it's easier to take off all the hammers to get to the butt leather, which will then need respacing, or whether it is easier to remove all the dampers so the hammers will rotate for access without removal. I think I lean toward leaving the hammers on the rail. The dampers are easier to put back on, and you avoid having to file and possibly travel the hammers.
You can assure the owners that though the ecsaine is also artificial, it is good stuff, and will last and do just fine.
Susan
------------------------------
Susan Kline
Philomath, Oregon
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-26-2018 12:46
From: Jon Page
Subject: Baldwin vertical issue
The problem with the jacks is the Corfam. There's lots of info in the archives.
------------------------------
Regards,
Jon Page
Original Message:
Sent: 02-26-2018 12:01
From: Scott Cole
Subject: Baldwin vertical issue
I recently tuned a Baldwin vertical from about 1980, and had some issues with jacks s-c-r-a-p-i-n-g their way back under the hammer butts. While most neglected pianos I come across have too much lost motion (this piano had never been tuned, at least since the 90s, and required a 100+pitch raise), this one had too little, and giving back a tiny bit of lost motion made things better. But not as good as I wanted. Even with too much lost motion, some jacks still scraped their way reluctantly back with audible complaint. I've heard I could try strengthening the jack springs and weakening the hammer springs, but I don't thing the owner wants to invest any more in making the piano better than it is.
My question is: why would the jack still rub if there is obvious lost motion? It seems like a contradiction. Is there some kind of design flaw these pianos are known for? Is ti possible the jacks are simply too long? I must be missing something obvious.
One thing that made me suspicious about the quality was the tuning pins. Many many had only two coils, and many had very loose coils. Nothing to do with the jacks, but still a possible indication of overall quality control in that era...
Scott Cole, Registered Piano Technician
Serving Southern Oregon and Northern California
(541)601-9033