I'm in the process of re-stringing a screw stringer and did a lot of research on the type of piano itself. I'm pasting in relevant text from the November 1995 journal below. It obviously starts after the beginning of the article, but didn't find the rest relevant. Have fun and try not to break any combs or strings if possible.
This particular instrument hadn't been tuned in as long as
anyone could remember, and the top two octaves were over 100
cents flat relative to the rest of the instrument, which was
roughly aroundA-435. There was some rust on these top strings
where they wrap around the do-hickey - I have no idea what
the proper name is for the part that connects the string to the
machine screw- and I suspect a previous tuner chose to leave
the top section flat, rather then risk breaking strings and
having to figure out how to string this kind of system.
Instructions inside the piano said that pitch should always
be approached from below because this type piano settles
sharp. I realized that with the machine screw, one cannot use
any impact motion to help overcome friction. That would be
achieved by the test blow, but this piano is 100 years old, and the
action wouldn't withstand much in the way of pounding.
Anyway, I thought that by having this machine screw setup,
I'd notice infinite control over the string. But n reality, I felt
separated from the string. Many screws moved half a turn
before I heard any change in pitch, then all a once the pitch
wouldjump. This also was far from uniform from note to note.
After two and a half hours I called it quits and came back home
to write this letter.
Is anyone familiar enough with these critters to offer me
some advice? Thanks in advance.
- Gordon Large, RPT
That was a very interesting summary you provided about
your experience with the Mason &Hamlin screw-stringer. (Try
saying that fast three times).
The following comments are in no way supported in either
the scientific, theoretical, or even empirical sense. There is
little supporting data for these opinions. In addition, these
statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Mason
& Hamlin Company, nor the inventors of the 'screw-stringer'
mechanism. (Who are most likely deceased.) Rather, they
reflect exclusively my limited experience with these instruments.
Is that enough disclaimers?
Unlike the Chickering Brothers, whom I believe stayed up
nights coming up with methods of not making any two pianos
alike, I believe the 'screw-stringer' was conceptually and inherently
a sound design. I believe its demise was caused by: (a)
being too costly from a manufacturing standpoint, and/or (b)
being too radically different from the mainstream to become
widely accepted; likely the former.
I believe you (Gordon) were the victim of time and circumstance,
i.e., irregular service, to put it mildly, .("...hadn't been
tuned in as long as anyone could remember...") and the last
tuner's fear of string breakage, thus leaving the top end 100
cents flat. Incidentally, any wire breakage due to rust can be
repaired. The second through whatevm repairs go quite fast.
It's the first one that's a killer.
The fact that you found the remainder of the piano at only
One of your suspicions should have been correct: that of
having infinite (or certainly finite) control over the string. I
prefer to think of it as a vernier effect. I, too, do not know the
correct nomenclature for the "do-hickeys," so will borrow
"machines" from guitar buzzwords.
Therein lies another similarity. I've
known guitar players to curse an instrument
for the same jerky motion
you described. I've known others who
insist on using brand name machines
on their guitars - to the point of
replacing factory originals - to eliminate
this problem.
To borrow another term, this time
from motorcycles, I think you were
working against "stiction."In addition
to possible rust on the threaded portion,
the other, sliding "do-hickey,"
just wasn't rendering. Had the string
not jumped, either the screw would
have stripped, the wire broken, or a
similar effect as the recent agraffe discussions
herein. Either way, something
else negative would have happened.
(Don't-Try-This-At-Home Department)
At the risk of sounding unprofessional, I'd have no
problem adding a small amount of light lubricant to the
threads and moving (sliding) parts of the machines. Perhaps
administering a film ofWD408with a pipe cleaner would help
the stiction problem. After all, there's nothing to fear about it
running down into the pinblock, is there? The remainder of
your 2-l/2 hours were due to: (a) first attempt at an unknown
situation, and trying to modify your natural rhythm/tool handling
accordingly; (b) fighting the wire's reluctance to render
across friction points after years of developing a memory, and
(c) if you did bring the top end to pitch, that would affect the
stability of the rest of the piano.
A435 after an unknown length of time supports the premise
that this is (was) a plausible method of securing piano wire
under tension. It removes pinblock structure and the question
of loose pins from the circuit. This leaves the structural integrity
of the back, soundboard movement - including any
bridge roll, and wire memory as the other variables. Well, there
is the variable of tuning technique - more later.
Finally, some thoughts on tuning technique. It becomes
immediately obvious, even without instructions inside the
piano, that one does not need to "over-tune" to compensate for
pin flex. However, instead of the "pitch should always be
approached from below because this type piano settles sharp,"
I prefer to think in terrns of tuning up to pitch, and no more.
I don't think the piano settles sharp by design. I think this is
simply a by-product of approaching the tuning with our customary
methods. All other conditions being equal (to other
pianos), I suspect that a few "normal" service intervals will find
the piano quite cooperative . . . and incredibly stable.
Almost forgot your statement about old action parts and
pounding. Instead of velocity, think frequency . . . less energy
repeated more times. This should help stabilize the strings just
as well.
This combination of conditions should qualify for what
Newton Hunt calls "rare or unusual circumstances," and prices
should be adjusted accordingly.
I hope this provides some seat-of-the-pants insight until
someone comes up with something more . . . scientific.
I can't claim vast experience on screwstringers, having
worked on exactly one. Restringing with nice clean wire and
cleaning up the bearing points did improve the rendering
considerably, but I did break two of the do-hickeys in the
process and had to make new ones. Actually I shouldn't say I
broke them - they broke themselves. I guess they decided I
was ready for a sudden and inconvenient lesson in metalworking.
One does get the hang of it, but you'll also notice that not
even Mason & Hamlin stayed with them very long.. . .
-------------------------------------------
David Fisher
Salem VA
540-892-9685
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-12-2013 11:41
From: Stephen Kabat
Subject: Mason & Hamlin screw stringer piano
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Fine Aural Tuning and Pianotech .
-------------------------------------------
Help! I have to tune a Mason 7 Hamlin screw stringer piano next Monday and I have never had the privilege of doing so before. The customer has the 'Thingee" which I assume is a tuning hammer specially for this. Any advice? Or if anyone knows if this subject has been covered in the Journal, I'd appreciate knowing where. I'll check too.
Thanks all
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Kabat
Lyndhurst OH
216-381-5662
-------------------------------------------