Pianotech

Will - while we're waiting for your sagely collegues to consider your situation, I'll dable a bit.  

First,  according to Kehl & Kirkland, the last regular O was dated 11/7/1924, while last Louis XVI was dated 7/20/1925, with L's being infroduced in 1923, so there could be some overlap, theoretically, but your description of the keyboard and keyframe themselves seem much more likely to be the problem.  Before the sages show up, perhaps you could provide more substantive data regarding actual elevations: string heights; I assume these are distances of centerpins from keybed: 146.1 mm. for shanks, 82.5 mm. for whips..  What is action spread?    You say: "Hammers were bored to the existing string heights,".  By whom?  How was that done without first reconciling questions of frame height position?   Do you have data for key geometry and action ratio?  What does existing key-leading look like?  Front weights?
Depending upon the scope of this work, would it make sense to consider a new keyboard/keyframe/action frame restoration?

white beard and hair, I thought you were sagely.  Sorry, won't make the mistake again.  :-)  The piano is an L, it has the L shaped tail.

As for string heights I measure the ends of each section and average  Bass 199mm, bored at 56, tenor 1293, bored at 50, low treble 191, bored at 49, high treble 189 bored at 48.  I have bored my hammers for 40 years, I cove,curve, taper, and set tail length.  Yes, measured from the center pin to the keybed.  As always I set the stack height first.

Action spread 112.5 .  Action ratio 4.9 for original, and 4.9 for revision.  Key ratio 2.08.  Original dip 10.0 for original, same for revision.  Original shanks 15.5, 16 for revision.  I forgot to gather the whippen ratio

The only key with 3 leads was note 1.  2 to 40 are 2 leads, 41 to 80 1 lead.  82 to 88 0 leads

So it is a lighter, low inertia action, and the rebuild will be about the same with Weikert felt Ronsen hammers, judging from strike weights. 

I do not think the key frame and keys mate well to the shanks and whips on the stack, and the capstans to the heels.  I am pretty confident that the keyframe is not original, though it looks like it should be, but not enough.  The keys are a mess.  I do not think the wood was properly seasoned because they are so unstable

A new keyboard and stack are not in the cards, although I think that is the better choice if money is not an issue

The idiosyncrasies of how the stack and the frame go together make me think the two were never meant to go together, and perhaps came from an O.  When I took my measurements, I started hearing:  "Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!  Alien life forms approaching!

1

Will - while we're waiting for your sagely collegues to consider your situation, I'll dable a bit.  

First,  according to Kehl & Kirkland, the last regular O was dated 11/7/1924, while last Louis XVI was dated 7/20/1925, with L's being infroduced in 1923, so there could be some overlap, theoretically, but your description of the keyboard and keyframe themselves seem much more likely to be the problem.  Before the sages show up, perhaps you could provide more substantive data regarding actual elevations: string heights; I assume these are distances of centerpins from keybed: 146.1 mm. for shanks, 82.5 mm. for whips..  What is action spread?    You say: "Hammers were bored to the existing string heights,".  By whom?  How was that done without first reconciling questions of frame height position?   Do you have data for key geometry and action ratio?  What does existing key-leading look like?  Front weights?
Depending upon the scope of this work, would it make sense to consider a new keyboard/keyframe/action frame restoration?

white beard and hair, I thought you were sagely.  Sorry, won't make the mistake again.  :-)  The piano is an L, it has the L shaped tail.

As for string heights I measure the ends of each section and average  Bass 199mm, bored at 56, tenor 1293, bored at 50, low treble 191, bored at 49, high treble 189 bored at 48.  I have bored my hammers for 40 years, I cove,curve, taper, and set tail length.  Yes, measured from the center pin to the keybed.  As always I set the stack height first.

Action spread 112.5 .  Action ratio 4.9 for original, and 4.9 for revision.  Key ratio 2.08.  Original dip 10.0 for original, same for revision.  Original shanks 15.5, 16 for revision.  I forgot to gather the whippen ratio

The only key with 3 leads was note 1.  2 to 40 are 2 leads, 41 to 80 1 lead.  82 to 88 0 leads

So it is a lighter, low inertia action, and the rebuild will be about the same with Weikert felt Ronsen hammers, judging from strike weights. 

I do not think the key frame and keys mate well to the shanks and whips on the stack, and the capstans to the heels.  I am pretty confident that the keyframe is not original, though it looks like it should be, but not enough.  The keys are a mess.  I do not think the wood was properly seasoned because they are so unstable

A new keyboard and stack are not in the cards, although I think that is the better choice if money is not an issue

The idiosyncrasies of how the stack and the frame go together make me think the two were never meant to go together, and perhaps came from an O.  When I took my measurements, I started hearing:  "Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!  Alien life forms approaching!

1

Will - while we're waiting for your sagely collegues to consider your situation, I'll dable a bit.  

First,  according to Kehl & Kirkland, the last regular O was dated 11/7/1924, while last Louis XVI was dated 7/20/1925, with L's being infroduced in 1923, so there could be some overlap, theoretically, but your description of the keyboard and keyframe themselves seem much more likely to be the problem.  Before the sages show up, perhaps you could provide more substantive data regarding actual elevations: string heights; I assume these are distances of centerpins from keybed: 146.1 mm. for shanks, 82.5 mm. for whips..  What is action spread?    You say: "Hammers were bored to the existing string heights,".  By whom?  How was that done without first reconciling questions of frame height position?   Do you have data for key geometry and action ratio?  What does existing key-leading look like?  Front weights?
Depending upon the scope of this work, would it make sense to consider a new keyboard/keyframe/action frame restoration?

Will -

Regarding your last comment first ; "Danger danger...", any chance you're  using a 'smart' caliper that's picking up Hulu, or something?
Jumping to the beginning, there appears to be one measurement error: 

"... Bass 199mm, bored at 56, tenor 1293, bored at 50,...".  If that measurement is correct, I'd start there... but we know it's not.

Otherwise, as Dean Reyburn said (allowing for missing this error), "Your string height sounds like it's in the normal range,"

Which keeps comling back to this mutant keyboard you seem to have. You've proposed two possibiities: a mis-match of keyframe and action frame, or a poorly executed replacement.   I think you need to determine what the anomalies are and whether any of your other efforts will be compromised .  

Otherwise, my remaining thought is about the given action ratio and the minimal amount of key leads, which would suggest that original(?) hammers were very light... not surprising.  What was your thinking about going from 15.5mm knuckle to 16mm?  Allow for somewhat heavier hammers?  Also, you say key dip is and will remain at 10mm.  Wouldn't that increase somewhat with the 16mm knuckle?

white beard and hair, I thought you were sagely.  Sorry, won't make the mistake again.  :-)  The piano is an L, it has the L shaped tail.

As for string heights I measure the ends of each section and average  Bass 199mm, bored at 56, tenor 1293, bored at 50, low treble 191, bored at 49, high treble 189 bored at 48.  I have bored my hammers for 40 years, I cove,curve, taper, and set tail length.  Yes, measured from the center pin to the keybed.  As always I set the stack height first.

Action spread 112.5 .  Action ratio 4.9 for original, and 4.9 for revision.  Key ratio 2.08.  Original dip 10.0 for original, same for revision.  Original shanks 15.5, 16 for revision.  I forgot to gather the whippen ratio

The only key with 3 leads was note 1.  2 to 40 are 2 leads, 41 to 80 1 lead.  82 to 88 0 leads

So it is a lighter, low inertia action, and the rebuild will be about the same with Weikert felt Ronsen hammers, judging from strike weights. 

I do not think the key frame and keys mate well to the shanks and whips on the stack, and the capstans to the heels.  I am pretty confident that the keyframe is not original, though it looks like it should be, but not enough.  The keys are a mess.  I do not think the wood was properly seasoned because they are so unstable

A new keyboard and stack are not in the cards, although I think that is the better choice if money is not an issue

The idiosyncrasies of how the stack and the frame go together make me think the two were never meant to go together, and perhaps came from an O.  When I took my measurements, I started hearing:  "Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!  Alien life forms approaching!

1

Will - while we're waiting for your sagely collegues to consider your situation, I'll dable a bit.  

First,  according to Kehl & Kirkland, the last regular O was dated 11/7/1924, while last Louis XVI was dated 7/20/1925, with L's being infroduced in 1923, so there could be some overlap, theoretically, but your description of the keyboard and keyframe themselves seem much more likely to be the problem.  Before the sages show up, perhaps you could provide more substantive data regarding actual elevations: string heights; I assume these are distances of centerpins from keybed: 146.1 mm. for shanks, 82.5 mm. for whips..  What is action spread?    You say: "Hammers were bored to the existing string heights,".  By whom?  How was that done without first reconciling questions of frame height position?   Do you have data for key geometry and action ratio?  What does existing key-leading look like?  Front weights?
Depending upon the scope of this work, would it make sense to consider a new keyboard/keyframe/action frame restoration?