ankles too low.

It is evident that the age of the instrument has favored the widening and/or shrinking of the soundboard holes. But it could also be that smaller tuning pins were installed… I wouldn't be surprised! I don't know if it is an upright or a grand. In any case, a crack in the soundboard may also have occurred. If instead the soundboard is healthy, all that remains is to proceed with the replacement of the tuning pins (and therefore the strings… at least the white ones) with larger-sized tuning pins. Naturally, the diameter must be the same throughout the entire instrument. If there were any holes "damaged" by these attempts, i.e., resulting in being wider, do not choose a tuning pin that is out of size compared to the others, but instead dry-fit a small strip of beech veneer into the hole; use two half-strips vertically. This way, the tuning pin will find a housing similar to the other holes and there will be uniformity of grip.

Before replacement, carefully evaluate the new diameter of the tuning pins and if possible choose the same length and type. It is expert work and requires the intervention of a good technician. Furthermore, it is a long job that requires many sessions or transporting the instrument to a workshop. Naturally, one must always evaluate the appropriateness of certain interventions in relation to the value and age of the instrument.

Naturally, if the tuning pins that are not holding are few, one can consider removing them and repairing the hole as mentioned above. However, if there is a crack in the soundboard, the result is not guaranteed. One can, however, test it on one or two repairs; then see whether to change the loose strings or reposition them. In any case, with tuning pins of the same diameter as the others and the same length!!!! Naturally, these are all hypotheses. The instrument would need to be seen and examined carefully.

Let me know your decisions, if you wish

Good luck with the work

thanks for the answer. My impression is that the knuckles are all a bit too comfortable. The positive fact is that now, after having hammered them, the tuning stability is more than acceptable. It is true that seeing some lower knuckles makes me want to intervene. The piano is a 2-meter Chickering from 1910. The knuckles and strings (not the bass ones) were replaced and [the hammers were] hammered; the main problem with the tuning stability was in the high notes after E6. Now I have checked and there are no drops. Before, it would lose even 20 cents within a few days; now it is stable after 10 days. Perhaps I could settle for this? I am attaching a photo where it is possible to notice the "hammered" knuckles. It is true that on the piano it says Tuned at French Pitch. They explained to me that French pitch is around 438...

I will take this opportunity to ask if undersized knuckles can cause resonance problems with other strings. There are some frequencies that cause vibration (even if slight and only perceptible to an attentive and refined ear). Even though by putting weight or applying pressure on the bass bridge, the vibrations stop. I was wondering if this could also be a problem of string tension due to the knuckles or the soundboard.

The vibrations could depend on the strings not being seated properly against the bridge (take a soft metal wedge, e.g., brass, and tap it against the bridge pin to ensure perfect contact). Or from a micro-scratch on the bridge. Or simply from the age of the strings. Or from the "leveling groove" at the nut... the causes can be various. Not least is the hammer regulation. It does not depend on the different diameter of the tuning pins. I cannot see the photo. Given the times mentioned, the tension may be acceptable. One must see the timbral quality and the duration of the sound and measure the load on the soundboard.

When the pinblocks were driven in, was a support placed under the soundboard? Because if you didn't do it, you cracked it; this is more or less what happens:

http://www.amadeuspianos.com/pin%20block%20restoration.JPG

no matter how thin the soundboard may be, it seems strange to me that the pin (even if it is deep up to its neck) could pierce through it (did you use 64 mm pinblocks? Considering the thickness of the plate, it is still difficult to pierce the soundboard because at most you can reach the curl flush with the plate)

When the pinblocks were replaced, was the wedge properly reintroduced under the plate? (it falls out on its own when you release tension from the bass strings; if it weren't there, I would understand why you are able to load the bridge with weight).

Increasing the size of the pinblocks is useless if the soundboard is cracked; I hope the plate was removed and its condition checked before re-pinblocking.

Best wishes

yes I applied the voicing when I hammered, even though when I saw my tuner do it I didn't notice him applying any voicing. The tuning pins are 66 mm. Now I only notice that after the hammering operation, the three pins in question are lower than the others but they hold the tuning very well. Looking at the soundboard from under the keyboard everything seems fine. Going from under the keyboard I can insert a screwdriver into the holes and measure how far the other pins reach, and on average I measure 5 mm of gap. The hammered pin, however, is almost flush. I hope I haven't caused that kind of damage, but in any case, can a cracked soundboard hold the tension of a piano like this? At this point, should I push them back up or leave them as they are and enjoy the piano? I am attaching a photo I took with the flash. In my opinion, it would be possible to remove one of the pins and take a photo of the hole to see if there are cracks. But is it worth it?

Ps: I noticed a video on the internet where this American restorer put some glue in the hole to try to create more friction for the pins. He said to try this before proceeding to what pianoexpert mentioned regarding the beech wedges.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JbzxzEkRFr4/U8Uu83nSNyI/AAAAAAAACQE/67WCramzeCo/w781-h586-no/IMG_20140715_153304.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JbzxzEkRFr4/U8Uu83nSNyI/AAAAAAAACQE/67WCramzeCo/w781-h586-no/IMG_20140715_153304.jpg

From underneath, you cannot see if there is a crack in the middle; generally, a piano of this age should be examined before changing the legs by removing the frame.... The strip veneer, preferably maple, is a makeshift remedy... If there is a crack, it's no use, just as it's no use increasing the size of the legs.... Why did you install 64mm legs? The stability of the leg must be primarily on the upper part, where it flexes.... Are there bushings around the legs? (I mean between the legs and the frame)...

Can a delaminated soundboard also be glued by passing very fluid hot glue between the layers (is it layered or a single solid piece)? But you must re-clear the holes so that no glue remains. Glue in the holes is absolutely not okay.

In short, in my opinion, one should have thought about it beforehand, instead of doing a cheap job only to have to redo it...

I didn't install the tuning pins myself. It was two alleged restorers from Eboli who then lost interest despite my protests and observations, but by then they had already been paid. As far as I am concerned, I have already removed and replaced a string in the bass. While removing the tuning pin, I didn't notice any other parts (I am just a musician slowly trying to understand some things and I don't pretend to be a technician). The entire tuning pin comes out of the cast-iron frame, but I cannot see anything else. In any case, they assured me that the soundboard was perfect. I thought they had installed 66mm pins, but if you tell me they are 64mm, then maybe it's another rip-off? Anyway, at the moment the piano sound is very beautiful, even though I am slowly trying to make further improvements. Unfortunately, I have already spent a fortune, 4000 euros for a mediocre restoration. I will post an audio example of the piano sound later. The question is: if there were damage requiring the soundboard to be repaired, must one necessarily remove the strings and the plate? And what is the name of the tool used to lift the weight of the plate?

Of course, but don't think about this now. One shouldn't be pessimistic. And besides, we don't know if they are 64 or 66, who can say? The important thing is the tension/holding capacity. The length might be wrong, but what plays a greater role is the diameter. When talking about pianos this old, one cannot make assertions without seeing the instrument. You are certainly a very attentive person and, even if it wasn't like this in the past, now, for Him, a more peaceful life has begun!!!

Good Music

If only they had looked closely before doing a job, as usual pianists have to improvise as technicians to fix jobs done poorly (I don't think anyone is making up the problems).

64mm ankles because as far as I know, 66mm ones don't exist in the catalog, but that's a detail..

Suggesting an increase in the size of an ankle is wrong without having verified the state of the soundboard after removing the frame (I have the impression they haven't done it, or am I wrong?)

yes, they did... the frame was removed because I saw it personally... but I believe those gentlemen cheated me. They said they would do a lot of things. At that time, I had no knowledge regarding this matter. Of course, now it would be different, but by now it is too late. They told me they would change the strings and then I realized that on the bass side the ones from 40 years ago remained (fortunately not the ones from 100 years ago), then the entire action was out of whack etc. and I had to regulate everything myself following the videos from Pianoexpert... in short, I am certain we inspected the soundboard, but regarding the choice of pedals, it's not how we did it. I am trying to figure out where to find all the technical data documentation for the Chickering, but so far I haven't found anything online. If anyone has an idea of where I might obtain such data....

So if they did it, let's assume that the action is truly in good order; let's assume that they installed pedals of the next size up from the pre-existing one (the grand piano starts from 6.90 or 7.0 or 7.10 like a Steinway), so measure the one you extracted (I am talking about the diameter of the internal part) and let me know.

For those three that are not holding, you can try putting in others of the next size up, of the same type obviously... If you tell me the measurement, I'll see if I can find some among the leftovers; let me know also if they are blue or nickel-plated.

As for the rest, have patience, you are not the only victim of these kinds of people. The action that needs fixing is the least of your worries; obviously, for old actions, it's not enough to just do a regulation, you first need to center the hammers on the strings, center the repetitions on the rollers and pilots, check the pins, etc.... what other work did they do?

Forgive me for intruding, but I am opposed to replacing only some ankles with larger ones. The rest remains to be seen.

Why the opposition? There is a tenth of a difference between one and the other; if they are of the same type, no one notices, not even you if you go to tune it, for example :-D in many pianos you find some pins that are slightly thicker, it is much better to put in three that are 1/10 or 1/10 and a half thicker (In short, we are talking about 1/10 of a mm and they are equal to the others!) than to insert shims into the hole or hammer them in up to the neck like he did (that is something you can actually see).

They have already done the work by now; it would be diabolical to extract them all again if the other pins hold.

Naturally, just a difference of opinion. I say this because I like the uniformity of the diameters to remain unaltered. One day, when it is decided to replace them all, we would find ourselves again with some diameters lagging behind and others ahead. By putting thickness in the hole, neither the diameter of the hole nor that of the ankle is altered. One day, I would choose the new size most suitable for the wider holes. If there were a large difference between the wide and narrow ones, I might also consider slightly "reaming." (e.g., going from 6.60 to 7.10. If the narrower holes do not tolerate insertion well, I would use a reamer washer of 6.75). What do you think, Fra? Anyway, your solution is also feasible

Eh lo so .... The action, sure it can be done on an old Steinway A 188 to install legs of 6.90 X 64, the soundboard was rebuilt in plywood but they had put upright legs, too small. There is always some risk, however, when touching holes where the legs have already worked.

Anyway, in the normality of interventions, I have always seen a size larger than the previous one being used.

Ah .... The piano in question is the Steinway A 188 that was discussed here a year ago, that "from scrap to jewel" that we completely rebuilt and for which I have all the photos (we replaced the soundboard, so it is interesting to see the photos)

Back to us, according to you your observation is correct but here the problem does not arise because at the next turn it will be worth it for our friend to change the soundboard (it doesn't cost that much to make a new one)

by the way I found this video that perhaps illustrates the pianoexpert method. But instead of beech strips, he prefers only normal cardboard.

Open content (youtube)

Sure, strange things go around on the internet.... an unhappy piano to say the least, with the ankles all marked up, one up and one down.... my goodness, what a mess... amateur stuff.

Here is an important lesson: if the piano has nicks on the edges, it means it was tuned by an amateur who doesn't know how to use a tuning hammer, or that someone performed tuning exercises on it.... the first thing to look for when evaluating a new or used one, without even going further.....even in a shop!