30 replies to this topic

[kevin toner]

Geoff,

I can't believe it, what a difference a day makes! You were right.

[know this is off the thread subject - sorry]

By tightening up this so called bushel board, I'm playing 50 times better than normal, my practising is hardly the struggle that it's been feeling up until now, and I thought I was already doing well!

A million thanks again.

I'm nervous that it'll loosen again due to the way I play. This is because the screws you mention appear not to be normal screws, but like little plated rivets (5 each side) through the top plate, split into 2 prongs that clamp the bushel board back underneath. Marks around these on the board tells me that someone has tried to tighten these previously - so I gently turned each of them clockwise a notch and this has appeared to tighten the board back again. Apologies for not having researched these kind of screws(?) before posting back - trusting that there'll be some info about them online.

I still intend to have the service, but as previously mentioned I'd like to acquire a spare before doing so.

Kevin

Edited by kevin toner, 26 January 2012 - 05:48 PM.

[Dirge]

By tightening up this so called bushel board,

NO it's a bushing board; which has bushes, (or perhaps bushings) in it. Don't know where bushel came from.

I'm nervous that it'll loosen again due to the way I play. This is because the screws you mention appear not to be normal screws, but like little plated rivets (5 each side) through the top plate, split into 2 prongs that clamp the bushel board back underneath. Marks around these on the board tells me that someone has tried to tighten these previously - so I gently turned each of them clockwise a notch and this has appeared to tighten the board back again. Apologies for not having researched these kind of screws(?) before posting back - trusting that there'll be some info about them online.

I still intend to have the service, but as previously mentioned I'd like to acquire a spare before doing so.

Kevin

Sounds like you've got the rivets, not screws, fitted from 1930's on and you've turned the rivets until they've gripped the wood next to where they were originally clenched; I bet they slip back into their original grooves again fairly fast and everything is as loose as before. Rivetting them down a little more might be a permanent fix.

[Geoff Wooff]

Well I am so glad that you have made such an improvement to the playability of your Concertina. I would be happy with a 50% improvement in my playing let alone a 50 times amount !

Those things that are holding your Bushing Board in place are called Bifurcated Rivets.. I really do not like them at all. I am not sure if the current makers use them and if it would be possible to get some new ones from one of them but do be carefull when trying to tighten the little blighters. There is a risk of damaging the Board if too much force is used.

If we lived nearer each other I would offer to help with the 'service' or even lend you one of my concertinas whilst yours is being repaired.

I'd be very interested to hear some recordings of the pieces you are playing, one day when you are happy about it perhaps .

Geoff.

Edited by Geoff Wooff, 27 January 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[kevin toner]

Dirge,

You say riveting down – I can look into it as I share the same fears regarding imminent loosening. As you will see from my following note I’m tracking back on the history as it was not a 1930s instrument, although it was put into concert pitch possibly when Danny sent it to Wheatstone when they were with Boosey & Hawkes in later years. However, perhaps it was the case that Wheatstone did use these in certain instances in the 1910s too (?)

'bushel' was a freudian slip - proves I've still got bushels on the brain due to looking at grain silo capacities during my architecture dissertation back in 2000, which is online if you wish to be bored stiff. Excusable I suppose since the last time I dealt with bushes (engineering) was back in secondary school. The older generation of relatives would have rung my neck for that slip though..., particularly my Great-granddad (Danny's dad Michael Tonner) who first bought the instrument back in the early 1910s after 2 years of overtime in engineering work in order to afford it. I have always laughed off the story heard in my teens that he’d made an “improvement to the combustion engine”, but now I’m not so sure. I might as well jot down the basic story now that I’m accidentally on this.

[so this ties in with the story about how Danny acquired his father’s concertina in ca. late 1920s, which was nothing short of miraculous. The Wheatstone was returned by the Buffalo Parish whom Michael contributed finances to (whom I think were closely associated with the industrialism of The Bethlehem Steel Co., who decided to hire Michael from Glasgow around the time of the Co's venture to set up a mega-scale plant near to Detroit in ca. the mid 1920s as car production was set to improve and rocket – one of the big reasons for the Crash due to the economies changing hands (train to car) (records to radio), well, so said a recent BBC news article – although this was before the family got the chance to immigrate after Michael’s establishment there i.e. when he died suddenly from a form of cancer and so the concertina and moneys were returned to the wife... who then legally deleted the N within our surname and that of the children to avoid confusion with the much more common Turner, so we were told! Danny said Michael was [funnily] a rivet maker too as well as being multi-talented... Lawyers allegedly approached Toner relatives regarding a possible patent issue, which wasn’t pursued in the end. I’ve got a hunch that it was Vanadium or the likes that Michael may have been experimenting with as he was known to have caused the odd small explosion at a foundry in Glasgow and because the Ford Model T started to incorporate this material after Bethlehem Steel were set up. Otherwise Michael would have to have been more than merely a materials scientist on the side since the BS Co. I think supplied parts at best. Who’s up then for doing a co history on perhaps one of the US’s most prolific industrial concerns? Ironically, I first heard of them as they happened to be grain silo owners (as well) in Buffalo; and then seen a blipvert of their dollar bill image as shown on one of Michael Moore’s documentary trailers , before recently being told that’s who Greatgranddad had set up with! An interesting aside I know, which maybe someone will make sense of some day.

Still off the subject: Michael accompanied one of his 2 daughters (stage name Peggy - the girl with the amazing voice: Maggie Toner) on Music Hall work etc. in Glasgow - we have a newspaper cutting of a successful and rare Italian tour too. However, she hadn't pursued a career with her voice in spite of this. Although I'm focussing on 1930s at the moment indefinitely, I'll not being ignoring this earlier era up to 1930 - I fortunately have the EMI Big 48 Song Album to study later albeit it appears fairly stripped down in order to fit it all into a thin format book, which I'm sure will be an acceptable primer/intro to the era. I see that Alexander Prince was playing and was prolific at this time too, which is very interesting – I also think that Prince would have warmed nicely to what Hugh S Roberton was doing in the late 1930s in his popularisation (?) of some Gaelic Airs etc. aside from his renowned Glasgow choir, namely Westering Home; Mairi’s Wedding; Come Along; Air Falalalo; Mingulay Boat Song; as all that I know of to date on him, which I'm including in my first batch of material – the latter is quite brilliantly written, but is challenging at times as the rhythms don’t always match (and are cleverly exchanged) between the voice and piano staves, which might help explain why modern day renditions of the MBS are quite out of kilter. I’m hope to conquer the MBS if it’s the last thing I do as it’s going to be worth it.]

Geoff,

Thanks very much for all of that. Interesting to hear what the terminology is and so on!

Thanks for your kind offer of a spare and to assist in repair work had we stayed closer to each other. I’m hopeful that we might be able to catch up with each other at some point on such things as perhaps we’ll meet at a future event.

I will certainly get some recordings uploaded before I move on to my next batch of study. I’ve got a lot on with this initial batch at around seven songs and I feel I need more time yet – possibly will be within the first half of the year certainly.

Kevin

[Dirge]

Dirge,

You say riveting down – I can look into it as I share the same fears regarding imminent loosening. As you will see from my following note I’m tracking back on the history as it was not a 1930s instrument, although it was put into concert pitch possibly when Danny sent it to Wheatstone when they were with Boosey & Hawkes in later years. However, perhaps it was the case that Wheatstone did use these in certain instances in the 1910s too (?)

I came across these rivets used in a 1920's instrument and Stephen Chambers, who doesn't appear much here these days but is the fount of all knowledge nevertheless, said that they had probably been fitted later when the factory did some modifications, so Boosey and etc may well have fitted them to yours as part of an overhaul.

Complex family history that, interesting.

[JimLucas]

By tightening up this so called bushel board,

NO it's a bushing board; which has bushes, (or perhaps bushings) in it. Don't know where bushel came from.

"Bushel" is a word that sounds like it should be related to "bush" and "bushing" if you're not familiar with it as a separate word, but it's actually an old English and American measure of (dry) volume. There are 4 pecks to a bushel and 8 quarts to a peck, so 32 quarts or 8 gallons to a bushel. The US bushel is a little over 35 liters, the British bushel a little over 36 liters. (British and US bushels aren't quite the same, as British and US quarts aren't the same. In fact, a US "dry quart" is slightly different in volume from a US "liquid quart". All of which is largely academic, since only the liquid pint, quart and gallon remain in common use, and those only in the US.)

My mother used to buy fruits and vegetables by the bushel at the nearest farmers' market (they came in bushel baskets, something I wish I could find these days), feeding some fresh to the family and canning the rest against winter shortage. That was back before transport had reached today's massive scale, and fresh fruits and vegetables were almost all both local and seasonal.

[Dirge]

By tightening up this so called bushel board,

NO it's a bushing board; which has bushes, (or perhaps bushings) in it. Don't know where bushel came from.

"Bushel" is a word that sounds like it should be related to "bush" and "bushing" if you're not familiar with it as a separate word, but it's actually an old English and American measure of (dry) volume. There are 4 pecks to a bushel and 8 quarts to a peck, so 32 quarts or 8 gallons to a bushel. The US bushel is a little over 35 liters, the British bushel a little over 36 liters. (British and US bushels aren't quite the same, as British and US quarts aren't the same. In fact, a US "dry quart" is slightly different in volume from a US "liquid quart". All of which is largely academic, since only the liquid pint, quart and gallon remain in common use, and those only in the US.)

My mother used to buy fruits and vegetables by the bushel at the nearest farmers' market (they came in bushel baskets, something I wish I could find these days), feeding some fresh to the family and canning the rest against winter shortage. That was back before transport had reached today's massive scale, and fresh fruits and vegetables were almost all both local and seasonal.

Good heavens. Extraordinary!

[kevin toner]

I recall (in my architecture dissertation on grain silos) that there was indeed a difference in us/uk measures of bushels. I made sure of the difference before comparing a legendary fast Buffalonian marine-leg (in bushels per hour) with comparable apparatus in Glasgow, which was written in a tons per hour basis. Grain silo capacities and throughput were actually more often measured in tons, but bushel rates were of course the main measure for certain trading processing and distribution aspects of the commodity especially in the US except of course at 'futures' level where MMTs (Million metric tons) is used. Thanks Jim for your description.

at #21, Bifurcated (or split) Rivets as they are called are shown in the following link here (see fig. 6) albeit there are simply 2No. (not 4 to 5 as in mines) to hold the bushing board in place. They are indeed incredibly flimsy - the tabs/prongs look almost as soft as tinsel paper! I can't believe how they're managing to adequately fasten the bushing board but that's what they're doing!

Interesting that the Crabb instrument example shown in the above link dates ca.1910s prior to the rethink, which now dates it as possibly ca.1930 as the 'build-date', which corroborates what Dirge was saying regarding seeing them from 1930s onward.

These rivets have so far been stable for me after some cautious tightening down i.e. after a few hours of playing to date and counting.

Other than the standard conventionally sized examples with 3mm head dia. upward,a quick google search online reveals nothing of the sizes required for the bushing boards nor of any relevant tools/machinery etc. that might be required - my guess is that they were made independently by the concertina makers.

I trust the concertina maintenance manual does not cover this idiosyncrasy (?) I may be open to resort to screws if necessary, but hopefully I can retain the plated rivets as they are next to unnoticeable on the outside.

Kevin

[John Wild]

By tightening up this so called bushel board,

NO it's a bushing board; which has bushes, (or perhaps bushings) in it. Don't know where bushel came from.

"Bushel" is a word that sounds like it should be related to "bush" and "bushing" if you're not familiar with it as a separate word, but it's actually an old English and American measure of (dry) volume. There are 4 pecks to a bushel and 8 quarts to a peck, so 32 quarts or 8 gallons to a bushel. The US bushel is a little over 35 liters, the British bushel a little over 36 liters. (British and US bushels aren't quite the same, as British and US quarts aren't the same. In fact, a US "dry quart" is slightly different in volume from a US "liquid quart". All of which is largely academic, since only the liquid pint, quart and gallon remain in common use, and those only in the US.)

On my one trip to the US a couple of years ago, I found that the pint of beer was a different measure. A British pint = 20 fluid ounces, while the American pint was 16 fluid ounces.

- John Wild

[JimLucas]

On my one trip to the US a couple of years ago, I found that the pint of beer was a different measure. A British pint = 20 fluid ounces, while the American pint was 16 fluid ounces.

Which would suggest that the US pint is only 0.8 of a British pint... but that's not so simple, either.

The US fluid ounce is slightly larger -- a hair more than 4% larger -- than the British fluid ounce, so the US pint is 0.83+ of a British pint.

Isn't it great that everything (outside the US) is now standardized to the metric system, where everything converts simply with factors of ten?

Well, except for minor discrepancies.

I was long taught that a cc (cubic centimeter) was the same as a milliliter, but the milliliter is actually 1.000027 cc.

That's close.

Very close.

But not exactly the same.

[spindizzy]

On my one trip to the US a couple of years ago, I found that the pint of beer was a different measure. A British pint = 20 fluid ounces, while the American pint was 16 fluid ounces.

Which would suggest that the US pint is only 0.8 of a British pint... but that's not so simple, either.

The US fluid ounce is slightly larger -- a hair more than 4% larger -- than the British fluid ounce, so the US pint is 0.83+ of a British pint.

Isn't it great that everything (outside the US) is now standardized to the metric system, where everything converts simply with factors of ten?

Well, except for minor discrepancies.

I was long taught that a cc (cubic centimeter) was the same as a milliliter, but the milliliter is actually 1.000027 cc.

That's close.

Very close.

But not exactly the same.

Only up to 1964 apparently ....Looks like a cc now equals 1 ml (or wikipedia seems to think so) - I feel much happier now, the thought that there was a difference shook me badly.


"A litre is defined as a special name for a cubic decimetre or 10 centimetres x 10 centimetres x 10 centimetres, (1 L ≡ 1 dm³≡ 1000 cm³). Hence 1 L ≡ 0.001 m³ ≡ 1000 cm³, and 1 m³ (i.e. a cubic metre, which is the S.I. unit for volume) is exactly 1000 L.

From 1901 to 1964, the litre was defined as the volume of one kilogram of pure water at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure. During this time, a litre was about 1.000028 dm³. In 1964 this definition was abandoned in favour of the current one"

Edited by spindizzy, 30 January 2012 - 12:32 PM.

[JimLucas]

I was long taught that a cc (cubic centimeter) was the same as a milliliter, but the milliliter is actually 1.000027 cc.

That's close.

Very close.

But not exactly the same.

Only up to 1964 apparently ....Looks like a cc now equals 1 ml (or wikipedia seems to think so) - I feel much happier now, the thought that there was a difference shook me badly.

Oops!

And Aha!

My copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is dated 1963. I had forgotten how long ago I bought it.

Then again, I don't recall hearing about the change in 1964, and at a technical university the redefinition of the milliliter should have been considered as "shocking" as deciding that Pluto isn't a planet.

Things like that do happen, though. I remember when Linus Pauling gave a guest lecture to our chemistry course. All of a sudden he stopped, erased a few numbers on the blackboard, and rewrote them slightly altered, muttering, "I keep forgetting that they changed Avogadro's number since I learned it."

[kevin toner]

I recall saying on the thread that salvation army brass players may also have experienced severe finger perspirations during cold weather, but on second thoughts I forgot that gloves are worn, silly me! Albeit finger perspiration etc. is definitely an issue in some brass maintenance/cleaning forums.

I also said I'd refrained from guitar due to callous build up i.e. from playing those luscious chords associated with the 1930s standards, which are almost as equally spellbinding on guitar, nylon string being my personal playing preference as I haven't heard otherwise except through old Eddie Lang and Django Reinhardt mp3s. Nylon might be too bassy as a recording option though (?)

Well, I'll be reverting back onto strings once again. I know where I'm going now in terms of concertina and can now give guitar (and ukulele) some attention now too. I say Uke because I have recently acquired some independent Lawrence Wright Music sheet music that appears to have the uke chords tablature. The latter is a much bearer sound, but when the voice is applied over, it's once again a spellbinding experience, thanks to the LWM Co.

As for the possible eventual callouses, I'm wearing gloves at the moment, but I've another trick up my sleeve that I'm waiting to try out shortly, and will report back soon on this.

Kevin

Edited by kevin toner, 30 January 2012 - 06:13 PM.