David Hornett

Terry, Fascinating. I am very interested to see the furry side against the board made a difference, My Jones, which I believe had original pads, only had (rather thin) leather, smooth side in, no felt. I replaced the leather with fine soft 1.2mm leather, (what animals i don't know) from a woman's dress coat I got at the salvos. There is no discernible leakage and it is a loud instrument. I would be very interested if the different materials generated you measured generate a different volume and tone. David

Jig is for 7 fold bellows, although will accommodate 8 fold. 41 cm between endplates, adjusting slide 3.5cm, fold depth 3cm, 3.2 with black rag-boards removed. And as I cannot work out how to attach an image I have sent some to Terry in the hope he will oblige, again. David

Re bellows making. I thought it would be really hard work, but providing you have a bellows jig with the dowels extending through the ends of the jig it is simple. Follow Ted's advice. Use rabbit skin glue. A boiler can be made from a rice boiler from Kmart and float a cup in it pegged to the side. NOW I am not boasting, or exaggerating in any way, but if you set up the glue pot alongside the bellows jig, with someone the other side of the table to slowly turn the jig by the handles, the cloth strips can be drawn from the glue pot through a set of large tweezers to remove excess glue and with another other set of tweezers laid flat onto the bellows ridges as the other person turns the bellows jig handles. For 7 fold bellows this take between 11 and 15 minutes. Leave on the jig until nearly set but still pliable. Remove. Compress back and forth so the bellows don't set open. Now when the glue is still slightly flexible but not tacky place the bellows one edn down on a flat board, put another flat board on top, and I then put a 10 kg piece of old railway line on top of that. Come back in half an hour, flex the bellows again, recompress. Come back in an hour reflex and compress. Leave compressed for 24 hours. Follow Teds advice (see his site)about gussets and putting the cover leathers on. Carefully consider if you are going to put on bellows papers, they take ages, the most time by far in making bellows. I have sent some images of my equipment for different sized bellows to Terry in the hope he will post them as I have never worked out how to do so.

Terry, Cabothane Clear Bunnings.. I tried the oil and dubbin, but of course if anything goes wrong you can't clue to it and it discolors the papers. You can't glue to Cabothane either I suppose, I have never tried, but then when all the bellows are coated who needs to. Anyone tried diluted shellac as a sealer? I too am interested in what else to seal the gussets with, before they are glued into place, so the whole instrument does not need to be coated. Got the idea to spray them because the bellows papers, which are by far the most time consuming things to attatch when making bellows, I used to spray with Cabothane one side only (the back was left unsprayed so the glue would adhere). When doing up my Lachenal and Jeffries I had found some papers displayed on the net, copied them, enlarged to size, got the colours right and then printed off sheets. Because the print paper was just good quality photo paper, but thin, I gave them a dose of Cabothane, stiffened them up and kept them clean when in place. The papers I designed I also did the same to, but there is the distraction of a slight gloss. On the Jeffries I kept them all in the natural, no coating, they look great but will discolor over time. The Cabothane does not noticeably discolor, but really it is the sealing of the gussets before they are placed, with a sealer that can be glued, that I am interested in, that's the only mystery I have left about good bellows making. David

Terry, In your considerations I hope you have paid attention to the gussets. I have made about ten seven fold, and one eight fold bellows over the last couple of years from chrome tanned kangaroo skin (Parker leather www.packerleather.com, QLD: fantastic people to deal with) -- I wondered one day if I could do it then got carried away -- seems to happen to me occassionally. Anyway the bellows work beautifully, tight, no sag, no spring -- sit perfectly flat -- but when one kept the pressure on they would close, and if falling under their own weight would open in about 60 seconds. Pads! ... , it is always pads! Well so I thought. After wearing out my pad press, pads with felts, pads without felts, pads on card, pads on MDF, plastic pads (the leather pealed off, odd that) and pads leathers attached with Quick Grip, feltless straight 1mm soft leather pads (the best for clarity of sound, with no noticeable deterioration in seal) I got smart, Gussets?? Now being lazy I had used .025 - .03 mm skived (Skin on) Parker Kangaroo skin gloving leather -- folds beautifully, much tougher than other leathers, elasticity way up there, so I opened a set of fitted bellows, got some warm soapy water and .... hundreds of little bubbles covered the gussets. (I could not stare in wonderment too long, water and rabbit skin glue, but I stared enough before running for the paper towelling and the blow heater) The wife says, "Well, if you had asked a doctor, not that you can ever believe I'm one, rather than fooling around in that dungeon of yours, she would have told you leather breathes!!" Terry, leather breathes. Solution: I sprayed the bellows with satin clear. Those bellows do not leak, you could sit on them at the paschal feast if the springs could stand the pressure, and they are 8 fold, lots of places to leak -- but, other than the semi shine, the ester very slightly forms little ridges not on the gussets, but on the outer leathers due to stretching from opening and shutting -- detracts a little from the cosmetic effect. I have been wondering if shellac would be better. Anyway, I put up with the seepage now, it still takes unsealed bellows a minute to close (eg the bellows on the Jeffries) and that's not too bad in my book.

Thank you everyone.

Just got the magnifying glass out again: the bottom loop is a closed one on both numbers on the board, the top loop appears to be open. The number is also stamped on the cloth behind the fret (which is a cloth like calico not paper) where they both appear open on the top and depending how one squints open on the bottom. Wife says 88, but under the glass I think much more likely 3316. David

Hi all, I have sent pictures of the instrument to Terry, along with a closeup of the serial number which is definitely L8816, (wifey agrees with potentially purblind husband). The sites Limited MGs don't allow me to post them, hopefully terry will find a way around this. David

Reed labelled C# (tongue scavenged for the Jeffries) length 36.96 / 35.51, width at heel (where no deburring evident) = 3.13 / 325. I doubt this will help, the heel is not vertical at the end of the slot, it actually slopes forward. At the toe it is undercut about 3/4 of the way up (it is easy to see where it stops). The slot at the toe and heel is not at right angles to the side, but I cannot tell how crooked they are as the calliper's jaws will not measure right to the corners (the thickness of the jaws holds them from the side. The sides are sloped, but the deburring rounds the edges: these measurements are as accurate as I can get them, but really hardly accurate. David

So there are no file marks except to clean up the edge? That makes absolute sense with the internal finish I observed, much better than my theory of fly press compression. David

After your above comment Chris, I have just taken a few accordions to bits (Bugari, Castagnari and a Hyde) to check this out. Yes, you are absolutely right, with the caveat that the nature of the profiling on an accordian seems much more the heavy weighing of the tips, there is little gradual build up to thickness as on the concertinas. Accordion = after a more gradual slope at the heel than a concertina has (the one I measured) a nearly flat reed from the heel then a rapidly lumpy end, the only profiling akin to concertina (the more gradual thickening toward the tip) occurs on the very bass reeds (length 49mm) on the bass side where the profiling is more evidently smoothly bellied heel to tip as with a concertina. The same occurs on the deep harmonica reeds. ie, The reed is machined flat from the heel, then there is a vertical lump of metal left, and if that is not enough, a bit of silver solder is plonked on the end, hence I can just cut a long bas reed into a small reed by disregarding its end. Thanks Chris, I've learnt something today.

Terry, A hands free tuning table is what you need with tuning slots that lock the shoes into position as is mine below. School desk with bellows supplied courtesy of Peter Hyde. The bellows are held in position with a strip of rubber (salvaged from a ute cover) Bellows are operated by knee action, you can then do anything your heart desires with your hands and there is more than enough air in the bellows. The bellows are weighted on the bottom with a steel plate of just enough weight to extend them at about normal playing pressure, the top seals against the bottom of the table with a hole through the table to supply air. The nature of the tuning section is a slide that takes adapters to concertina/ accordion and harmonica reeds and tuning.The table is a school examination table with the ability to adjust height to cope with short and long legs. I tried to attach the file but the photo was oversize so I have emailed it. Feel free to attach the photos if you can and put on the site. David

Terry, thank you from the third person reading this. If it had not been for your pestering, and rather cunning insights when I stuffed up a few measurements, I would have given up goodness knows how far back. I have printed out your two profiling graphs and have them pinned to my tuning table. BUT not a soul, ie the other two readers, assuming Danna has given up on our madness, have discussed harmonica reeds which are not profiled ... just weighted, and all the same thickness and width!! (When I break a chromatic harmonica reed every now and again, I take one from a too far gone machine, measure the length, cut the end off and it will fit in any slot beautifully, a pass with the file and it is impossible to notice the difference). Excluding the harmonicas width and common thickness, my bandoneon reeds, and of course accordion reeds have no profiling and they sound grand (some may disagree re accordions so sounding I suppose) All accordions seem to rely on is different thickness, unprofiled steel, with a dob of lead on the end when things get desperate. And to think all this started with my request to be directed to an article on profiling. Thank you again Terry, Chris and Danna David

Terry, I have emailed you the re measurements you asked for without consulting the original table. (This time I took every reed out of its shoe, rewashed it, and used two tuners just in case I getting lies from one) Dana, thank you for you comments: they are born out precisely in what I found when I was measuring the reeds. And Terry thanks for all the tabulation -- and to think, I began all this by simply asking what profiling was, as having fiddled with accordion, harmonica and bandoneon reeds for years, other than tip weighting, I had never come across it. Terry wrote this: And A4 to Bb4 would seem happier an octave up, where there is currently no data. There is no data here because there was evidence these reeds had been tuned (judged by the different direction and pressure of the scratch marks and glossy appearance on the tip, unlike all the others, in fact one was brass and the other German silver, so they were discarded as being too unreliable). David

Especially if you are nursing it so there is no shatter when it hits the ground. Take your time, you had to wait long enough for me to find mine. Any doubts ask for a remeasure, I don't mind: I read 'em off as my son entered the date, between us there may be an inadvertent bumble here and there. David

Terry, I emailed the measurements yesterday. Have a look at them please and post if sense and sensibility can be had from the graphed figures, only 5 points plus the heel measured, and slot length, but they do seem to say something when all the data is considered together, and being a duet there are a lot in duplicate, triplet and indeed ... well whatever the word for 4 copies is. I hope people are still interested. The measurements were done twice over to minimise mistakes, and also to try and understand any anomalies. David

Ah ha, spread sheets, I once set up my finances on a spread sheet, very clever, totalled by itself, trotted out percentages and all. I returned to it a year or so later and guess what, for the life of me i could not remember how i'd done it all. if you could set up a spread sheet and email it would be great. I could read out the data and my son enter, would be a double check that way, in fact, if you set up three columns we could enter data for Lachenal, broad reed jones and Jeffries all for the same note. I even have a brass reed Crabb and a Wheatstone extended treble but these later instruments have been tuned. Duets of course have the same pitch push and pull so if there were two columns for each of them we may see an interesting difference but the same pitch! Beginning to look like a job for when I return from the National. Crabb = standard three row Jeffries 44 button duet Lachenal 39 button duet Notes to be measured C3 to A6: width at tip Width at heel heel thickness under strap internal slot length of shoe 5 point thickness shoe thickness Weighted or unweighted reeds David

Well, I will, when I get the pin micrometer, now measure for each reed: width at tip Width at heel heel thickness under strap length 5 point thickness shoe thickness and then I will go to the National Folk Festival in Canberra, play my accordian and whistles and forget all this nonsense for a time. As for a form: with the big reeds where a lot of meat needs to be removed, yet still allow min of .025mm in the belly, they could easily be laid over a shape (form) and filed flat at 45%, and for someone who could hold a file steady it would be a quick task to make a few passes and then let the reed spring back, hey presto, and exactly the same profile for each reed. The file would not even graze the shape, those old fellow could shave a 1" cube to within a 1000 thou of an inch, I believe. Anyway, once there was a steel template of the desired shape as many copies as one liked could be poured from pewter for instance: I am going to give it a go and see. By the way, the .04 cut at the heel is about 5% off parallel with the mounting plate, and it does appear as though the file has been moved much more lightly over this section, for whatever reason. If all fails, there is one sure thing, in a few weeks I will be a much wiser man than I am now

Hi all, give me a few days and I'II give you the readings for all 60 reeds, heel, length and thickness. But one thing I do suggest is that a close look at these rather pristine reeds, no rust, just nice clean reeds is I suspect the profiling was done over some type of form, the reed held bent over a male profile, the file passed across in a series of long strikes and then the reed mounted and tuned. I suspect this because the file marks are uniformedly approx 45 degrees over each reed (a guess), and no file mark interferes with another, all consistent with the reed being held firm, and longitudinally tensioned, and a number of file passes. When the required centre thickness was reached the reed could be lifted from the form, it would automatically flatten, inserted in the shoe, trimmed to length, and then touched up. Each reed for the required note would be consistent (a form for each) and with a bit of experience (doing the same thing every working day of your life) very little final tuning would be required. The real skill would have been in making the forms. That's my guess The file marks are deep, direct firm and non interfering, the same certainly cannot be said when I do my little bit of tuning every now and then. That's my guess for this instrument. Have a great day.

Latest sizes for your graph (I won't bother with any more until I get my new pin micrometer from England, about a week or so, and then i will attack the Jones, but they have been filed, by me. Thank you for the hint re thin cotton, fantastic idea. Low C Heel (area under clamp plate 84 33 30 34 61 82 free length 35.54 Low C# Heel 84 40 31 26 52 83 35.54 Low D 84 40 31 30 45 82 35.54 Low D# 84 40 31 28 49 73 35.54 Low E 84 36 27 33 41 46 35.54 A# below middle C 37 24 25 43 48 Middle C 28 25 25 34 35 D above middle C 36 25 23 33 41 E above C 23 21 22 29 32 A high C .20, 19 16 15 15

Terry, Your little graph has me rather enthused. I did take the reeds out of their shoes for the measurements, I have never had any problem removing and replacing reeds from shoes and getting pretty well exactly the same pitch as before removal on replacement. The secret is to use thin strips of feeler gauge, measure reeds before removal from the tip to the shoe. (That being said, I still don't want to interfere with my jeffries vitals, but i may use Chris' suggestion for that and turn down a micrometer.) The instrument shows absolutely no signs of having been tuned, no scrapings or scratchings over the top of the original scratchings, middle or tip: nothing. I am pretty sure they are virgin reeds. If I am not too stuffed tonight after work I will get back to you then with a few more measurements. I will take a few from the Jones, once I turn down my micrometer, parallel reeds will be an interesting comparison, however it has been tuned. Thanks again everyone

Thank you for the graph, I have gone back and here are a few more , accurate this time, measurements (Red below are the additional measurements including any more accurate measurements. (Measurements are read from the attachment end, ie, from immediately on the free side from where the tongue passes under the screw plate) None of the low notes have solder weighted ends.The instrument is a Lachenal Duet 8816 (Tapered reeds. I assume tapered reeds would need thicker ends, unlike the straight broad reeded Jones. I have a nice "Broad reed' Jones and will have a go at measuring it too.): Low D 40 31 30 45 82 Low D# 40 31 28 49 73 Low E 36 27 33 41 46 A# below middle C 37 24 25 43 48 Middle C 28 25 25 34 35 D above middle C 36 25 23 33 41 E above C 23 21 22 29 32 A high C .20, 19 16 15 15

Thank you. I have been doing some measuring before I made the post, and there was absolutely no rhyme nor reason to the profiles, I thought I may have been able to come up with a nice little chart, but no, then figured that a quick post may give some insight: which it did, thank you Greg -- I'm off with my micrometer to measure a lot of reeds, and then a quick trip to Chris, we have met around the traps over the years.. An untuned lachenal I have (ie has absolutely no evidence of ever having been tuned and is in the old pitch) has the following profile beginning at the reed screw end (in mm): Low D# .40, bottom .28 (middle) .73 top end Low E 36, 33, 46 A# below middle C .37, .25 .48 Middle C .37, .25, .35 E above C .23 .22 .32 A high C .20, .18, .15 I have measured a few others too. I have a very nice Jeffries, but my hands shake with the thought of taking its reed tongues out to get fine measurements. Thank you all again. David

Hi, Could anyone direct me to an article which gives precise details of what reed tongue profiling is. I have the silicon spring steel cut to the correct width for the shoes, have tuned possibly thousands of reeds over my time, but never fathomed what profiling is, or rather how to determine the correct profile for a reed. The reeds I have tuned have never been affected in their quality of sound, but then tuning is over such a small range that it most possibly does not affect the profile, whatever that is.. Some nice accurate diagrams would certainly help. David

Thank you Geoff, I have just now looked up the topics -- now i know resonators are baffles! Very helpful. I might experiment with fabric stiffened with semi-gloss lacquer, but the cotton wool has some promise, indeed there would be lots of things quietened, "What was that you were saying Dear ...?"