Chickering Grand Piano Serial Numbers
Familiar with Chickering pianos? I have seen big full concert grands and then a bunch of tiny baby grands, but not much in between.I played my first recital on a Chickering that use to belong to Teresa Carreno; I think about 6'3' but I did not know then to pay attention to these things and just thought 'this old piano is really nice!' What is your experience, impression or what have you heard about the Chickering pianos in between 6 and 8 feet long?Years of construction and actual size are much appreciated, although of course what I am looking for is those of you who love these pianos and are ready to rave about them. Chickering9, you there?For details, do you have anything to say about the characteristics of the plate (for example, is it about 16 mm?), the hammers (I have heard original hammers were smaller than other makers at the time) of the shape of the rim (which famously gives the Chickering a whole lot more soundboard area than other pianos of comparable length) or anything else?Too bad Baldwin is not making the larger models. Do you know whether they are keeping the original scales and rim shapes? I have played a variety of the 6 1/2 footers including the 131, 109c and 116.
One aspect of the 131 scale is a long back scale on the bass bridge which puts the bass bridge well away from the back rim so that it is not detrimentally restricted in movement. I think that helps a bit with bass response. The 109c was a frequently used scale in the 1890s through about 1910 and usually featured the 'yacht tail' which was typically a bit wider than than the continuously-bent scales, though those tend to be wide compared to many makes, but not so much so as compared to the 109c scale, which often includes a very wide left cheekblock because of the very wide board. I am a little less enamored with the Scale 123 which has a less massive plate, though it's certainly stout enough, and some might prefer it's design which allows more open soundboard area, and they sound fine, anyway. I just tend to prefer the heavier plate and one that is full-perimeter, for the inherent structural stability. The 109c and 116 are much heavier plates.The tail of my concert grand is only slightly narrower than the unusually wide tail of the original Mason CC prior to their narrower versions in CC1 and CC2.
Like the Masons, the original Chickerings had massive rims and bracing. I've seen yacht-tailed concert grands with soundboards very nearly as wide as the Boesendorfer Imperial.One preference I have for Chickering over Steinway is in their use of rib-crowning for the soundboard, where Steinway has used compression crowning methods. With rib-crowning, the curvature of the board is supported by a machined-in curve along the tops of the ribs. The boards seem to survive better over a longer time. Every Chickering I've played still had its original board and without exception, tone, sustain, and projection were still very good, even in a few where the board was not pristine but showed signs of compression ridges or even separations at glue joints.I have never run into a 119, the 7'6', the 110b at 7'8' with the wide yacht tail, or the later version of that scale with the bent-rim. There were models at exactly 8 feet from about 1880 till about 1920, but I'm not certain of the scale number, but I believe it to be 121.One aspect of criticism of action design is that in most older models, the action brackets on the action stack are generally made of laminated wood, though this does have inset steel flange rails.
The one rail that does not have a steel insert is the letoff rail, which is all wood. Laminated wood is not as susceptible to changes in dimension as solid wood, but certainly more so than metal action brackets. I have not experienced any problems with the laminated action brackets, but would prefer metal for strength, give the choice. Also, many used brass hammer and wippen flanges, which some criticize, up until about 1920 when they changed to wood, doubtless for production savings. I actually prefer the brass for one very good reason-they do not 'travel' like wooden flanges do. When wooden flanges absorb moisture and dry out, cycling over and over, that loosens the screws and hammers travel away from centered on the strings and must be aligned and tightened regularly.
This doesn't happen with the Chickering brass flanges. Same for the wippens.
They stay where they are parked. As long as the screws are tight, they stay right where they were put. Other than those points, the Chickering action from about 1885 forward is pretty standard double escapement. Mine is still using everything original execept for the hammers and shank which I replaced some months back, and in spite of that age, I still find it the most precise and controllable action I've ever played, with whisper soft amazingly easy but with good leverage for FFFF.
The keys truly feel like they stay just under the fingertips with a nice firmness, but without any sense of heaviness throughout movement.I have not heard anything indicating the hammers were any smaller than average for any given size. Those on my concert grand certainly aren't. They're about the same as a Steinway D for size. When I ordered my replacement Ronsen Wurzenfelt, they came in at precisely the same dimension.I like the 6 1/2 footers better than pretty much anything comparable. Enough so that the preference made me look for a full concert grand instead. I feel spoiled by it and even though it's over 100 years old, many days after practice I get up from the bench and think 'wow!' I can't help but respect the engineering that went into the thing such that all these years later it is still possible for me to feel that way.
I figure as a former Steinway/Mason afficianado, I'm about as annoying as a result of my Chickering conversion as some recently converted to evangelical religious orders. So you really don't want to get me started. And, also, I figure most such preferences for tone are subjective taste anyway and neither here nor there except to the buyer/owner. But on objective issues of stout and precise construction and good design, I stand by Chickering's historical reputation as 'second to none'. It's interesting to me how many of the great composers and players owned both Chickerings and Boesendorfers at home, with the odd Steinway thrown in.
So I tend to think that's the sort of company they belong among.Baldwin production pianos bearing the Chickering name have no basis or derivation from any orginal Chickering scales, but rather derive from old second-tier Baldwin designs. I think Baldwin completely missed the boat by using only the name and not the original scales. If they'd really wanted to challenge the top of the heap Steinways and Masons, they'd have done well to go back to C. Frank Chickering's award winning scales. Ah, precisely what I was looking for. Where are you located?
If it is not too much of an intrusion I want to come visit and play some Liszt on your piano (I have never broken a string, even playing those lame 1980s Steinways that break when you look at them, so nothing to worry about).I plan to get my second piano in about 5 years, so I have plenty of time to look for a 119, which seems to be the piano in my preferred size. I know size does not matter at much, but generally I find smaller pianos just not acceptable and I have no space for an 8 footer or bigger.Very interesting concept about the brass action parts.
That would make the action have more mass as well, which may contribute to a richer, fuller sound. I will start a separate thread on the role of mass in sound production, but if you have anything to say, maybe here is the place to write it first.And talking about mass, your piano has a full perimeter plate? How thick is it?
Very interesting.Those Chickering designs ar ein teh public domain. It's just a matter of time before a smart Chinese, Polish or Czech manufacturer picks them up. I understand Sammick did it right when they picked up Knabe, and are producing pianos according to original scales. To all, please flame if you know better. The brass flanges are in a fixed position and do not move. I.E., the hammer and shank moves and the fixed brass flange adds no mass to that. Same for the brass wippen flanges, wherein only the wood and felt wippen moves.
This would be the case whether the flanges were wooden or brass. The flanges in either cace do not move with their respective units and do not add mass. The mass just sits there firmly fixed to the action rail in either case whether wood or brass. Whether wood or brass, these flanges would contribute nothing to tonal nature by nature of their substance. The only advantage is as previouslly stated, their consistency over time, by virtue of stability, unaffected by humidity swings as they are. The plate is naturally thicker in some places than others, but the average thickness of those places where it becomes perfectly flat are 16 mm.
There again, I view a full perimeter plate as having not so much bearing on tone as on structural stability, which certainly does have some bearing on long-term stability of production of tone. A plate has to have enough mass to not freely vibrate and produce unwanted resonances and has to have enough mass and density, and the right design for structural strength, nothing more. My only point about the 123 versus the other scales' plates is that it is very much less in its design than full perimeter, with huge sections that do not extend to the rim, even while the plate struts and such are no thicker.
Perhaps the earlier heavy plates are 'over-kill' and this 123 plate configuration is actually sufficient. But looking at later models, one can see that Chickering again resumed production of plates that extended to the rim and did not contiue with that pared down design. Even that may not imply anything and perhaps nothing should be inferred from it, but given a choice, I'll take the one where the heavy plate bolts to the inner rim all around versus the one that does not, for the obvious reason that the heavy plate is not going to let the inner rim distort from its original shape over time (much). Those Chickering designs (scales) result in a particular flavor in the piano sound envelope. Whether or not the public would again buy that flavor and whether it would be smart in any business sense is just conjecture. Already some people do not like the Boesendorfer or the Fazioli sound. Others think they are truly ideal and pay the price they command.
There was a market for the scales and sound Chickering produced in this country (US-I'm in Oklahoma) for more than 150 years. And those designs received critical praise and awards. That reputation and proven market are the true value Baldwin bought.
They simply chose to trade on the name, however, by putting it on the second-tier instruments, of Baldwin origin. The Chickering name adds nothing to those scales. 'A rose by any other name.' , or the inverse of your choosing, is apt. There was much that Chickering learned in 150+ years of experimenting and coming up with designs that equalled and rivalled the very best.
If Baldwin wanted to please that segment of the market that liked 'the Chickering sound' for 150 years, they could have executed a few models using whatever number of the incredible range of designs of Chickering over the years to arrive at that sound envelope. Instead, they chose not to and even a cursory glance at the 'Chickering' today tells you Baldwin. So they didn't expand their market at all with different designs to capture a different segment of the market looking for that different sound to suit a taste, but sold the same old Baldwin flavor and called it Chickering. I prefer real chocolate and not 'chocolate flavoring'.
I hope Del and Keith are reading this, I think there is something here.Thank you for your generous advice, Chickering9. I am enjoying learning more about these pianos from you and if you don't mind would like to continue this interesting dialogue in public as we have done so far.I beg to differ regarding your view that the thickness of the plate adds little to the sound and mostly affects only the structural stability of the instrument, the latter of course something it obviously does.All that dense metal there carries vibration. A thicker plate contributes to a piano that projects better, just like a dense and hard rim (I think we have explored this particular point before when we were talking about reinforcing the left side of the rim and discussing tension resonators and sidebars).
I believe the tonal qualities of your piano owe much to that massive plate. The sound that you describe as head and shoulders more powerful (not only louder, but more powerful ) than Steinway must be related to the fact that the plate of the Steinway is so light (about 11 mm).Thanks for the info about the brass action parts not being in motion. It is not a bad idea to add brass to the moving parts, although of course the actual weight will necessarily have to be offset somewhere in the other side of the equation so the action remains light. A detail for another day.I wonder where I could find one of those old Scale 119 or 110b. Those pianos must be somewhere.I find your comments about Baldwin very insightful and entirely agree this is a marketing mistake.
These scales could be made cheaply in Indonesia, China or even better Mexico using American and Canadian woods and local foundries and would take the 15K - 30K market by storm.Do you have any idea what the rim of your piano is made of? My first guess would be ash. I beg to differ regarding your view that the thickness of the plate adds little to the sound and mostly affects only the structural stability of the instrument, the latter of course something it obviously does.All that dense metal there carries vibration.
A thicker plate contributes to a piano that projects better, just like a dense and hard rim (I think we have explored this particular point before when we were talking about reinforcing the left side of the rim and discussing tension resonators and sidebars). I believe the tonal qualities of your piano owe much to that massive plate. The sound that you describe as head and shoulders more powerful (not only louder, but more powerful ) than Steinway must be related to the fact that the plate of the Steinway is so light (about 11 mm). I believe I said it must be thick enough to avoid undesireable resonances, but the point is beyond a certain amount of mass, more mass is just more mass. And cast gray iron is used specifically because it does.NOT. transmit vibrations-the point being to keep the vibrational energy in the strings where it can induce movement in the bridges and soundboard. Any vibrational energy that trasmitted into and throughout a plate would bleed off energy that would otherwise and desireably be channeled to the bridge and soundboard.
So the point of the plate is to.NOT. carry the vibration. Certainly the mass of that thick plate is partially responsible for a portion of the effieciency of the design of my piano, but I think string scaling and the soundboard and bridge designs probably have a great deal more to do with 'tone' than the heavy plate-though it doubtless is a factor.
More mass in the moving parts equals more inertia to both overcome and control. In some cases it might be desireable, but I doubt that in any grand piano with reasonably sized hammers there would be any need or desire to add the kind of mass anything beyond more wood or felt would contribute. If the hammer weight is right for the string mass and tension, that's all that matters. Past that point, extra mass would be detrimental to control.
Consider that you could add infinite weight to both the front of the keys and the hammers and still have balance-but you'd have to overcome all that mass with the keystroke. Techs regularly look for ways to.shave. off mass and.remove. lead weight if possible-to minimize the effects of inertia and only arrive at the amount of mass in the hammer and shank necessary to get a string with a certain mass and at a certain tension in motion at a certain frequency.
Chickering Piano Serial Numbers
Insufficient mass would not be good, but neither is excess. I think the Asians could do well to adapt some of those old scales as a starting point, but the prevailing opinion is that they need to work on consistent execution of a design first. Adopting a good scale from an old make's history might be a way to have a good design, but if they're inconsistent in production, it won't preclude some of the problems currently criticized or necessarily end up in a better result than we already see.
Yamaha based the CF on a Steinway D during their early years, and old American makes frequently simply copied major manufacturer's scales-for instance, Steinert copying Steinway. I would bet very few of the 2,000 now defunct American manufacturers did their own research and development, but very likely let the industry leaders like Steinway and Chickering bear the cost of experimental development. I have little doubt the newer Asian makers are already using scales of old makers as their basis, just as the Japanese did when they entered the market and produced pianos cheaper than the Americans and Europeans. Much of that savings came from avoiding research early, along with the cheaper labor.
Eventually, as they built a market, they have developed research and made modifications to their designs to improve them. Doubtless the newer Asian makers will eventually do the same. What might be interesting to know is if any Asian maker has perhaps.already. adopted old Chickering scales and perhaps we just have not recognized it. Chickering had dozens of scales.
Even if well-executed, we might not recognize one of them if we heard it. And even less likely to, if it were poorly executed. So who knows-maybe they're already using old Chickering scales. Who'd know if they didn't do a good enough job to arrive at the same result Chickering generally delivered? Great response. Thanks.We have only a semantic difference when we talk about carrying the sound. We are talking about the same phenomenon.
Because the plate is massive there is more resonance. We agree the plate itself is not resonant.
But the sound bounces off anything in its way and thus gets transmitted to the other parts of the piano, the air, and the listeners. I don't think we disagree, we are just calling the same thing by different names.Please let me know next time you see a 119 or a 110b (which you have mentioned you have not actually played). My impression is that the ones in ebay and pianomart are generally the smaller ones, and every now and then the large concert grands (like yours). There was a site devoted to Chickering history with a registry of owners, but it is now defunct and off-line. I made inquiries about taking it over, but never heard back from the owner.I have a PDF file of the entire commeorative book produced for the company's centennial in 1923 which I could send you if you will PM me your e-mail address. (Largish file around 3 MB).I agree that Chickering is a great name that is frequently overlooked. Between Aeolian in the later years and now Baldwin and neither building anything like Chickering originally produced, most of the world doesn't realize they were one of the first and greatest makes ever produced and deserving of a place in the top ten ever produced worldwide.
But that neglect of history is what makes them so much more affordable than Steinways and Masons and Boesendorfers. That's a truly interesting one. I've never seen one with that particular plate. I'm guessing it's not a 119, but likely a scale that is a close cousin to the 119. Nice ribbon mahogany. I always cast a skeptical eye at double-legged cases as they're all too often former players, but not always. Some few were just for style.
It is an interesting size. They don't indicate any sort of rebuilding, just the obvious refinish. My consideration of its value, either way, would depend entirely on current condition. I'm not of the school that wholy discounts the value of unrebuilt used. I've seen some pianos even predating 1900 in original condition that were still quite good, but they spent their lives in good environments like California and weren't heavily played. So I look at every old piano on its own merits.
This one is truly interesting size. I'd guess it to be most likely somewhere between 1920-1930 and not 1900, judging from similarities to production during that period.
Some are of the opinion that Chickering was actually improved once they merged with Knabe to form American Piano Company, and before Aelian took over. One of the best I've played was from that era. If I were shopping, this one would interest me. But if it is indeed mostly original and unless that original condition were that rare very serviceable original where environment and service had been kind to it, I'd be looking for some price below their asking for an opening bid, pretty or no. I think Chickerings are much undervalued in the market, but I wouldn't pay more than market for any given example. Beautifully and thoroughly rebuilt examples go for much more, some in that Steinway stratosphere of price. If I looked at this one and found its condition of playability was good and the tone what I'd expect from a Chickering this size, I might consider the price to be worth the paying to own and enjoy, but I'd know that it was above market and that being the odd-man-out of the mainstream not as interested in Mason or S&S, I wouldn't expect to recoup that cost on resale.
But I wouldn't buy such a thing with resale in mind. I'd only buy it if I were convinced on playing it that it was in its current condition near the mark that Chickering set for the piano makers art, which I certainly think was a mark second to none.(I've been quite busy with other things lately and haven't had time to browse Ebay. Thanks for pointing this one out.).
This is all very intriguing. I've just become a proud owner of an 1883 6' 6' Chickering that's had the case beautifully refinished and has been mostly bebuilt save the action which is the original Brown action, Chickering's standard action from what I've read until the early 1900's (this needs some work). The scale is a 106. Best turbografx 16 emulator.
Are you familiar with it? The piano is quite massive, weighing more than a Steinway B and the frame seems to be solid oak (4' including the outer case), no laminations here. The construction is quite extraordinary with 6 braces and massive cross bracing.
There are times when I'm done playing and just stand back and marvel at the magnificence of this thing! The cabinetry, joinery and construction is a sight to behold and the joints are seemless. The plate is not a complete perimeter as you've discussed and I'm not sure of it's thickness, but more than 11 mm I believe. The base is full and rich but the existing hammers need to go.
They've been over lacquered and I'm going to replace them with Ronsens. Needling has not done enough.
How very exciting! Post pictures if you can. New hammers sounds like a good idea. When you come across enough money, here is another concept for you. For everyone else who knows about these things, flame if you think his is crazy: I have heard that you can get a Fazioli with two actions, for you to swith depending on what you are playing. Maybe you han buy a modern action that fits in there (geometry of course being crucial) and keep them both.I think it would be a mistake to get rid of the original action, although that's an area where there has been great advancement in the last 120 years and the action is certainly not the most resilient part of a piano.Congrats on your purchase. No photos yet, I will need to get my hands on a digital camera, not currently in my possession.
I did see one exactly like in Google images under Chickering.let me think and get back to you. Your suggestion on switching actions sounds interesting, tell me more about it. I have been actually thinking about getting a 'parts' piano (Chickering) or an action on ebay or somewhere. I don't really have the $6,000 or so to replace my action but I wouldn't do it anyway because I believe in preserving intregrity of the instrument and would rather spend the money to improve the existing one, the lightness of which I really prefer to a modern one.
Speaking of modern actions, I would be interested if anyone owns a late 19th century Chickering that has a modern (Herz-Erard) repetition original to the piano. The Brown action I previously mentioned is basically a modification of the old English action patented by John Geib in 1786 which is a hopper and leaver mechanism and has no wippen or capstan like the modern actions (Erard).
Edwin Brown patented his own action in 1843 and it was used almost exculsively by Chickering for 60 or so years. He unsuccessfully attempted to launch his own business without any luck. These actions I'm sure were perfectly suitable when functioning properly. Liszt perferred Chickerings in concert, and no other composer wrote more demanding music for the keyboard, I don't necessarily think were dealing with anything inferior.
As a aside, I'm told rocker actions were used on Chickering square grands. Have two actions. Switch them according to the repertoire that you are playing on a particular day. You will need more regulation because of the moving stuff around, so I actually think is a little crazy, but there is no hidden anything.I support your decision of staying original, although I am of the school of thought that you should get the piano to be the best it can, regardless of purity. In fact, I would say you should strive to have the piano be better than when it came out of the factory.
Let your Chickering be all that it can be!If it was my instrument, I would explore whether an Overs action could fit in there, and if not put a high-end Renner in there. I seem to often be caught in the middle between performance/function and loyality to the historic original on all matters of preservation, be it pianos, furniture, or historic houses. But I don't completely disagree with you, I think your position arguably holds validity. As for Renner hammers over say, Ronsen wurzen felt, for someone who is looking for an 'older' mellow tone, or even a quality comparision, I would love to hear your or anyone elses opinion based on personal experience. Of course Renners probably cost twice a much and are often derigueur when doing a 'quality' rebuilding.
I have a late 1890s Chickering concert grand just under 9 feet with the Herz-Erard double-escapement repetition action (just like any modern action made today) that was entirely original until I replaced the shanks and hammers last fall with Ronsen Wurzenfelt. The piano made the rounds before I got it, going from Chickering Hall in New York to MGM studios in LA and got played by the very best of them over the years (and was the very piano on which some famous pieces debuted in NYC when my long dead grandmother was a mere girl). I couldn't be happier. I have a couple of professional touring friends who play with orchestras and record regularly who invariably say 'Wow!' Every time they play it. (Just as I still do every day when I think how truly lucky and unworthy I really am.) They say it's the best piano they've played anywhere bar none. I keep it tightly regulated and tuned very carefully and it is both very light.and.
very controllable. And capable of whispers and thunder, both cleanly.
Just today I had neighbors from 300 feet away comment about my 'beautiful music' this afternoon (in spite of the piano in an inner room and with all doors and windows closed!).I've never played a Brown-type action so I can't comment about it, but I'm genuinely curious. While Chickering stuck with it for many years, they.did. switch to the Herz-Erard-type and I don't think they would have chosen to do so unless convinced there were some compelling improvement in some aspect of performance (but their highest honor.did.
come to the house based on a Brown action at a time when Herz-Erard was already becoming the norm). (And interestingly, there are many examples of Chickerings of all sizes much earlier than yours with the Herz-Erard, but then, I've seen examples of 'straight strung' later than other examples of 'overstrung', too.)I have seen a couple of historic Chickerings immaculately restored by the best in the business that remained unsold for long periods of time in good markets with those Brown actions fully restored. One of those truly fine examples (ca.
1865) that was used at a major recent jazz festival is now in a renowned shop getting a custom Herz-Erard retrofit-because it simply would not sell with the Brown, though the concensus was that it's tone was spectacular and even though the price was more than fair for a piano with historical provenance and immaculate restoration. I appreciate historical integrity of an instrument, but when it comes down to what I want to play day after day, I have no doubt pure performance would win out over historical integrity-if the intended tone and dynamic range of the scale is preserved. I would have liked to have played that 1865.with. the Brown action to see for myself how it compares to the Herz-Erard and had a trip planned around just that but cancelled the trip when the piano went in for the from-scratch Herz-Erard retrofit.
(And I might not hesitate to do a magnetic assist action on my own eventually, if I know it would be done right and provide long-term reliability and some little degree of fluid control-so I'm not a purist, but rather just very demanding of uniformity and stability. I'd even consider a custom one-off Hickman action for all the positives I've heard about those.)I.have. heard a recording made on such a beast with the Brown action.
Chickering Grand Piano Serial Numbers Lookup
I could never fault it. It was gorgeous and quite unlike any contemporary piano for tone. The sound had a very nearly organic quality to it that is hard to describe. Even as it was 'bell-like' clear, it had a shimmer like the timbre of a human voice that is lost in most of today's modern highly-percussive instruments. It was like the difference between high-efficiency speakers and low-efficiency ones. It was a sound that made you think that if you so much as breathed on the strings they'd sound. But it was nearly indistinguishable from mine with the Herz-Erard.
I think the scale, soundboard design, and the fiber of the hammers have more to do with that sound than the action that gets the hammers to the string. Given that the tone can end up the same, I'd be truly interested to.feel. the difference under the fingers, and to know the difference in reliability between regulations (and to know how that service compares work-wise between the two actions).I'm looking forward to photos when you can post some and to hearing the rest of your story with your Chickering as it unfolds. I'm a reformed Steinway/Boesendorfer freak. The Chickering cured me of that affliction. Now I'm committed to my 2400-pound 'girlfriend', as my friends call her, for life. If I don't grow too fat, I may be buried in her.
I hope your own gives you half the joy I have everyday. It'd be more than enough.
Having compared both on the same piano, I wouldn't even think of anything other than Wurzenfelt, whether it be Ronsen or Abel's or Renner's versions of the WF. The dynamic range opens up in a way you just can't believe unless you've done both. The Wurzenfelts get you way softer and while they're every bit capable of delivering thunder, they do it without the distortion that comes from over-driving the soundboard with rock-hard hammers. And they're not so very far short of rock-hard. What they are is.just right. Every tech I've talked to who has done a Chickering with them has said, 'Wow!'
One said, 'This must be what the piano sounded like when it was new'. Those of us fortunate to have these fine old beasts are equally fortunate to now have hammers available that match the materials and pressing methods originally used for them and to not have to suffer the bastardization of tone that comes from the more modern hot-pressed rock-hard hammers. All that control of dynamic range and tonal color is in that little bit of resilience in those WF hammers. Within days of putting on WF's I was easily getting just the tone for certain pieces I'd struggled to get with the hard hammers. My playing has benefitted enormously from that little bit of resilience that lets me time after time get just the tonal color I'm after with a very predictable and controllable touch.
PTG's archive is full of similar testimonials, with just lately, even stories about the difference Wurzenfelt in key punching felts is making. I've been sold from day one. And the WF's have only gotten better and better as they've played in.
I would love to hear your piano! That is quite a provenance it has. Must a been quite new when it was played at Chickering Hall since C H was raised in the early part of the 20th century.
Know of any Chickerings on record that's available? Thanks for clearing up a suspecion I had, namely that Chickering did use Herz-Erard actions in their pianos before the 20th century. I do believe the point you make about Chickerings with Brown actions being 'less' salable is probably accurate. My paino sat for quite a while before I bought it and yes, and I paid what could be considered much less than what it's worth from a dealer who I'm told, doesn't give anything away. Still and all, it's a great piano and I'm expecting much improved tone with the WF hammers and perhaps rebushing will go a long way on the shanks to ease up the action. You're right about tone.
It is almost entirely a function of the piano's scale, with hammer heads also playing a crucial role and action much less so, unless there are major mechanical problems like the heads not striking properly (misaligned), heads too hard or soft, or being off centered, etc. Having said that, I would like to know the difference in the Chickering scales and wonder, for example, what the difference is between your 123 and my 106. Any thoughts? Good Morning Chickering Fans,This is my first post. My name is Tali Mahanor and I am a piano tuner and restorer. I am trying to learn as much as I can about the 1880's up to 1900 Chickering grand pianos, particularly their concert grand production. I read, with great interest, the postings on this subject, particularly the input from 'Chickering9'.
I own a small collection of six large Chickering grand pianos. My favorite ones seem to be from the era of the 1880's and 1890's. I have two earlier scale '33-B' straight-strung models which seem to be one of the more popular concert scales of that time around the 1870's. I 've seen quite a few of these over the years.
One of the two Chickering concert grand pianos at the Liszt Museum in Budapest is this scale. Scale '33-B's that I have seen are 3/4 plate types and are quite lightweight compared to subsequent models. Plates are extremely light, flexible and fragile.I actually purchased that old scale '95' concert grand that was posted on eBay and apparently made it into this forum. Frustratingly, it does not appear to have its serial number stamped anywhere on its parts. There are case/factory numbers present. The small paper sticker often found on the left inner cheek does not exist.
I have recently located another scale '95' for sale, #73,000, that appears to be essentially the same but with a simpler plate construction. No metal braces running underneath the strings, as mine does, and less massive plate flanges behind the damper lever system. These pianos seem to measure about 8'6.5' and possess wide 'Bosendorfery' tails. The soundboard does not appear to be glued to the rim, but rather sits atop some other assembly. I will soon learn more as we replace the soundboard and its three 'baby' pinblocks.
This model has a full plate, although, at first, it might be mistaken for a 3/4 plate type, particularly with the shape of the stretcher in the treble it has. Agraffes run to note 88, but, interestingly, in the Chickering pianos I have encountered, this does not seem to be synonymous with short-sustained, splintery-toned, false-beating strings as is the case in most other types I have played and tuned incorporating this system.I have two smaller instruments one 7'10' serial #72210, scale '98', and the other a svelte little 7'4', serial #65390 which also has the plate bars running underneath the strings. The Smithsonian Institute graciously sent me the pedigree on these two pianos as well as a Chickering Art Case upright I had.
They have the Chickering books in their archives.Finally, I have a large full plate concert grand, again and very sadly, without its serial number. I believe this piano to be from the later 1880's. It has a type of Capo D' Astro Bar in its top two treble sections with inverted half agraffes affixed to its bottom. It is less wide than the Scale '95' although it may be a tad longer, I think maybe at 8'10'.
It is murderously heavy. I am wondering if this might be their Style 'U'. It has the Edwin Brown Action within as does one of the 33-Bs and the 7'10' scale '98'.And speaking of Edwin Brown Actions, I played a 7'10' Chickering in very fine original condition some years back that had an Edwin Brown, and to my shock and amazement, things I could never play well, such as the left hand portion of the Moszkowski Etude no.
2 in G minor came out so evenly.It seems to me that the Chickering company's scale room was quite a turbulent place. Every one I see seems to differ around the 1880 - 1890 time. It must have been exciting yet terribly expensive to be changing plate moldings as often as they seemed to do. My experience with my Steinway & Sons research shows that there was much more consistency in production by comparison.Sincerely, TaliMiss Tali MahanorTalstein@aol.com.