Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Should I pay the extra for a Bolduc pinblock?

Testing is a good idea. But testing is not real world. It's an artificial situation that is an attempt to assess what actual performance might be expected. Sometimes the test is a valid predictor of real world performance, sometimes not. In any event, you certainly are to be commended for the attempt. It would be interesting to know how you implemented your test.

Real world is actually selling pinblocks to rebuilders around the country and having zero failures in 50 plus years. Zero. That would seem more valid than the few iterations you performed in your test.

And that is in comparison to Steinway and other major brands of pianos that have failures in under 5 years. I don't know about Bolduc -- I believe it is a good product but whether they have ever experienced a failure or not, I can't say. In my opinion, the Bolduc blocks I have tuned have seemed mushy compared to Falconwood.

[We should have Del chime in here with his experience with testing at Baldwin. Seems they had a "boil test" which some joints failed in but which was completely non-real-world. ]

I compare Delignit style and Bolduc style as hammers lacquered or natural felt.

The sensations are different.

Those multiply blocks are a recent idea , seem to me.

I know an old Delignit block with wood bushings is difficult to tune , the pins are hard to set, I think because the surface inside the hole is too much glazed.

On the other hand, perfect match between the pin's thread an the wood is adding much friction.
What may happen is that the thread wear more in a Delignit type block (?)

It is really surprising to me how much torque one can obtain from an old type of block with 4-5 layers, it may be possible while manipulating the pin, to roughen and orient the fiber in the hole somehow. I have no other explanation to the level of friction raise experienced.

Interestingly, the tests were specific to a particular pianos plate I was contracted to rebuild.

Delignit and Falconwood were my anticipated choice for success. I had been using Bolduc for quite some time but doubted it was right for this application.

Too much was at stake so I tested application specific. Several times.
I was surprised and even a little disappointed that the Falconwood and Delignit failed.

The resilience of Bolduc became apparent as I tested. It behaved slightly more elastic. It was a better material in this application.

For clarification, I did not boil any of the pin blocks in testing.

Drilling any of the materials weather they are Delignit, Falconwood or Bolduc is critical to the feel of the Tuning pin. I have tuned Falconwood and Delignit blocks that were both a pleasure and not. I have met mushy Delignit/Falconwood blocks. To be fair, the norm is generally good.

Over my last forty years of rebuilding Steinways BTW, Steinway pin blocks are generally not cracked. Rarely actually. I have saved a good many of them as examples and I certainly would have saved one if it were cracked. Of all the pin blocks I have re-pinned, Steinway tolerated this the best and with the least prep. I have re-pinned Baldwin's with the multi lam blocks and they are finicky to get right.

Selling the idea that a pin block will last indefinitely should include the information that other systems in the piano will not. When the piano is rebuilt it is generally prudent to replace the pin block. Re-pinning an existing block is usually done for budget considerations. Falconwood is more sensitive to changes in tolerances.

What ever the OP's decision is, if he drills properly and pins properly, he will have an excellent block.

I personally prefer the Bolduc. Back in the 80's we were using Delignit and Falconwood exclusively. Good material. Turns out I prefer the way Bolduc works and behaves for tuning. We have never had a failure of any of the material we have used. In the 70's we used cheap supply house brand material. That we did not like working with. I do not have any experience with today's supply house brand material. Perhaps someone can comment.

I have experienced failures of process and execution. These we correct. Materials are not as often the problem.

Interestingly, failures of material have been largely related to finish materials. One company was pushing an acid cure base coat/filler material for under lacquer. It failed. They have stopped producing that material. Cost me a lot of money to redo the finish ... twice, as the company blamed the reducer I was using. Reducer was not the issue. Material is off the market. This was the early 90's.

Which brings me to testing.

So Larry,

What specifically was the test, hypothesis, and results? The claim is only of use if specifics are given.

Jim Ialeggio

I think the more glue you have in a pinblock, the less good it is.

Just basic thinking

+1 The differences are minor and each rebuilder learns what he's working with and how to get the optimum torque and durability.

As you want gentlemen, but we are talking of periods of 30 years and more.

What return do we have on pinblock installations done 30 years ago ? there must be some yet.

Regards

Jim,

I agree. There was a particular maker, 1945ish 5'7" grand piano where in the Bi-chord notes on the low tenor bridge who's forward tuning pins had less than 1/8th" pin block between them and the plate flange. Three pins total if I remember correctly.

I also drilled for and ultimately used #1 pins as well.

The original pin block had failed there. I was very concerned and did not want to repeat the original failure.

I am sure I saved the original pin block. You are welcome to see it if you are ever in my area.

Thanks for the detailed reply, Larry.

I agree, most any pinblock installed properly will be OK.

Also, I recently restrung a S&S M from the 1915 era and re-used the existing block, even though it is my normal practice to replace a block on a piano of that age. But the block looked good and seemed good, so I took a chance for a client who wanted to save money (I use the double diameter oversize pins, so the material cost approaches a block but there is labor savings).

The difference in glue from one block to the next is negligible. Some people look at the blocks with many fine laminations and think it is full of glue, but that is not the case. And, for that matter, one could say that a Bolduc block is "full of glue" because of all the edge gluing they do to get the high quality wood that they select which does not come in wide pieces.

In 1984 I replaced my first pin block using standard supply house multi lam. I'm still tuning that piano today and have never had any tuning pin problems with it. I used the multi lam continually until about ten years ago when I noticed the quality had dropped. Since then i've been using multi lam with a 9mm delignit cap. I've been very happy with this.

The last pin block I did I made my own Bolduc style block and used a 6mm delignit cap. This worked very well, but was way to much work. I'll be sticking with the multi lam/delignit combo.

If this is your first block I would go with Bolduc block. Because it is more resilient, it is more forgiving of drilling variances and tuning pin size (tuning pins can vary within a set).

I've used Bolduc blocks since they came on the market. We used others before. I will never go back. I trust the Bolduc blocks. And as far as longevity we have never had an issue. We have some Steinway "D" s in theatres we have rebuilt. One in particular was done 20 years ago. It is tuned for every rehearsal and concert. It has to be around 200 turnings a year.
Mind you those tuning your not moving the pin much. My dad was the symphony tuner for a long time. He would say "I can tune that piano while eating a peanut butter sandwich" I doubt he ever did though.

I think there should be something mentioned here in general which I think applies to these varying pin blocks. If the drilling (feed/speed) and sizing to the pin is executed properly and the hole is prepped and pin installed properly, I doubt that the useful life of the piano would be cut short by the integrity of the new pinblock, regardless of what type of multi laminate is used. If a tech is a newbie to this work and not very experienced, there might be an advantage to getting the highest quality they can find...but the risk is the higher loss in $ if something goes terribly wrong.

Larry, How did you carryout the stress test? And can you explain at what point the failures happened?

Personally I like the feel of Steinway and Yamaha pinblocks best, although on rare occasions Steinway's do fail. By fail I mean de-laminate. I can't remember what Yamaha uses for their pinblocks.

The other tech at the dealer's shop used Bolduc for non-Baldwin rebuilds and seemed happy with it except for the higher cost. Through circumstances beyond my control I seemed to get tasked with drilling the 41-ply Baldwin blocks for rebuilds which I did not particularly like to do. Thought the extra glue was a factor that made these less than fun to deal with. Maybe not. Eventually went to Delignit (mainly because the dealer had an acct with Schaff) on a trial basis which was okay. Drilling et al was fine. But pin setting was troublesome. I did no more rebuilds after that. Have never heard a complaint about Bolduc blocks.

Testing was simple overall. Cut a basic flange angle to the samples and drill tuning pin holes very close to the flange, mimicking as closely as possible conditions in the original block.

Delignit and Falconwood split out every time. Bolduc did not.

Even still, when I strung the piano, I strung everything BUT the three offending pins. We also pulled the entire piano to pitch there by placing the block as firmly against the flange as possible. Then we installed the last three strings.

The pins were extremely consistent in feel to their neighbors. Still are today.

Delignit and Falconwood are top materials. With experience in drilling, they produce top results every time. I believe it is only these unique circumstances that have challenged the material.

Until the 1950s most pinblocks fell into two broad categories; the 3-ply (sometimes 5-ply) blocks like those used by Steinway (and others) and the "multi-ply" blocks made of maple veneers ranging in thickness from about 2 mm to 4 mm. Some of these, thicker ones, would be sawn veneers (usually with a band saw of some variety) while the thinner ones would be rotary cut on a veneer lathe. Both types of blocks worked reasonably well.

During WW2 Baldwin developed (or at least helped to develop) a material called Compreg. Compreg is a trade name referring to a material made of "compressed, impregnated wood fibers." It was originally developed to be used as engine mounts in Navy minesweepers. It was more durable than either bronze or aluminum and it was non-magnetic.

Basically Compreg consists of hard maple veneers coated with a resorcinol resin adhesive which is allowed to dry and then pressed together using extremely high temperatures and pressures.

After the war was over Baldwin looked around for other uses for the material and someone decided that it would be just great for piano pinblocks. The original material was far too dense for this use so it was modified somewhat using less heat and pressure. The result was basically the fiber-reinforced composite that became the so-called 41-ply Baldwin pinblock that so many of us learned to loathe.

Falconwood pinblocks are made using a similar process but, again, without quite as much heat and pressure. It is not quite as dense as Baldwin's material but it is still pretty hard. Delignit is another step down on the density scale.

The modern multi-ply pinblocks are basically just plywood made of rotary-cut hard maple veneers. Usually they are pressed in two separate panels that are allowed to fully cure and then the two are glued together to form a panel of the desired thickness.

Several decades back Steinway abandoned the three-ply maple configuration switching to a very similar five-ply panel. Bolduc's pinblock panel is very similar, if not identical, to this construction.

All of these work. But some are more forgiving to drilling inconsistencies that others. Generally speaking, the more dense materials are both more difficult to drill and are more susceptible to torque variations if the drilling is even slightly off. Many rebuilders using these blocks double-drill; they first drill with a bit that is just a bit smaller than the desired hole diameter and then follow it up using a bit of the final size.

These pinblocks are also rather unforgiving of variations in tuning pin diameters. Some tuning pin manufacturer’s tolerances are tighter than others. If the tuning pin manufacturer is known to have somewhat loose tolerances it is not a bad idea to measure all of the tuning pins in a few sets and sort them to size. The final drill bit size can then be chosen appropriately.

As the density of the material goes down the blocks become more tolerant to both drilling inconsistencies and varying tuning pin diameters.

Perhaps it is my experience at Baldwin but I have never warmed up to Falconwood pinblocks. Too much similarity, I suspect. I’ve used Delignit blocks from time to time with good results but I don’t really like how the tuning pins “feel.” Too much grip way down in the hole and I have to twist the pin too much to get the piano stable. I’ve also used the standard supply company multi-ply blocks and I‘ve used Bolduc’s blocks. Both are excellent choices but I’ve not been ecstatic about either.

My favorite block is based on the block I designed for the Baldwin Hamilton. The company wanted something “special” but did not want the expense and complexity of the 41-ply granite block. What I came up with was a 12 mm panel made up of 0.75 mm rotary-cut hard maple veneers glued up with somewhat less heat and pressure (compared to the standard Baldwin block). This was backed by a thicker panel made up using 2.5 mm rotary-cut hard maple veneers. It was, in my opinion, the best pinblock Baldwin made at the time. Very forgiving to drill and pin and easy to tune. The bulk of the friction was toward the top of the pin so there was less twist to the pin; setting the pins was easier at least for me.

(As an aside, I actually made a few of these blocks using rotary-cut poplar veneers for the back panel just to see what would happen. If anything the tuning pin feel was even better. We gave no thought to actually producing pianos with these blocks—our competitors would have had a field day—and I made no attempt to life-test them but I rather suspect they would have held up pretty well.)

I still use pinblocks made in a similar manner. I use Delignit sawn to a suitable thickness for the front panel and standard supply company blocks (also sawn to a suitable thickness) for the back panel. I still like the “feel” of the tuning pins in these blocks. As do others; I believe Ron Nossaman is using a similar block—which he also sells to others. I’ve heard of a couple of others, as well.

ddf

It is interesting how little "chatter" it takes to create inconsistent drilling. Sharp high helix bits are pulling the material upward strongly.

I can see a strong case for drilling blocks in the piano for this reason alone. I still drill the blocks out of the piano.

I am right handed and that makes holding the block for drilling note one difficult. This lead to an awareness of this across the entire block.

Stability of the block during drilling may be as important as anything else. Stability to a stricter standard than may seem necessary. We have used a pneumatic clamp now for many years and the improvement in tuning pin consistency, over each block and block to block, is worth noting.

Yes,Larry!...lets bring this discussion over to drilling technique which is something more than the "no-brainer" techs seem to think it is.

This discussion is near and dear to my heart. Some of the most difficult blocks I tune, are the blocks of other local rebuilders. To be fair I have to include my first three blocks in this collection of unfriendly blocks. They are too damn tight.

Why? Because in order to avoid some loose pins, or prematurely loosening blocks, rebuilders go for high torque on the theory that at least if it holds the pin tight, one can’t be called back on a loose block.

In my experience, drilling a precise hole, with consistency, is actually an extremely difficult task to get under control, and not one to be underestimated.

A couple of process oriented things I’ve been having success with on this front, and I would include bridge pin drilling here, is slowing the speed of the bit down. We have been told that spinning a fast spiral bit fast will clear chips, and let one proceed faster without “pecking”…that is, perform a single plunge per hole without retracting the bit repeatedly to clear the chips.

In hearing this advice, my take is that although it makes sense as far as clearing the chips, it makes no sense in that, depending on the depth of the hole, the bit and the chips will be way too hot, unto burning… even with cooling. Depending on the plunge speed, the heat will actively cause the resins in the wood to melt and clog the already hot bit, making the hole and the bit even hotter.

This happens all the time…the bit spinning fast, without “pecking” heats up and clogs. Drilling then continues with a hot bit, compressing chips, melting resin during the cut. The bit doesn’t look burnt yet, so drilling continues, either burning the hole and or over-sizing the hole. The chips are cleared at the end of the plunge, but the bit is still cooking, and the fast spinning bit, melts the resin again, clogging again, the bit's size varies with temp variablilty, finally burns, etc, etc.

Depending on the size of the hole/bit, and the depth of the bit, the workable range of bit speed/plunge speed will change. I have had significantly greater success in terms of hole consistency, by slowing down the bit speed(this will vary according to bit size), plunging at a speed that is not slow, but no so fast that the bit can be felt to be fighting. This, all the while observing the free expulsion of chips from the flutes. As the expulsion of chips appears to slow, I “peck”, unless I am double drilling. Speeds of the above vary per machine, material, and phase of the moon, so I don’t memorize a recipe, but observe the signs of the process outlined above.

Drilling a single 1,000-3,000 rpm hole in Delignit, even with a machine timed single stroke on a heavy machine like a Bridgeport, will result in pretty inconsistent hole sizes. Pecking, needs to be used on a single drilled process. If pecking is to be used the stock must be stable, and the machine quill and run-out must be capable of re-entering the hole without running out on entry. This run-out/quill slop, though, is a requirement that most drill presses can not pass. This precision required but not attainable with drill presses running a fast rpm, sets up a loop which actively thwarts consistency, and requires 175-200 in/lb holes...creating difficult to tune pianos.

Let's have some chat on achieving a reasonable torque in the 110-135in/lb range, on blocks of any provenance...resilient or non-resilient.

Jim Ialeggio

My understanding of the Steinway factory method of drilling pin-block is to drill the hole so that most of them are too tight when you string-but while you bring the strings up to pitch you move the tight pins back and forth a bit to loosen the hole until the feel is correct.

I drill pin blocks at the slowest speed of my drill press. I use a .250" single flute, brad point, auger style bit. It is custom made. It cuts first on the outer edge of the hole before the chisel face hits the pin-block surface. It is sort of like a rotary knife.

I have been using 1/0 pins in the top octave in the same .250" hole. Makes fine tuning much easier.