How Many Parts?

[Henrik Müller]

...

at which most people could complete the operation repetitively without tiring.

...

My two cents:

One thing that struck me during the process of making my own (one lever left to cut & mount, btw.) was that while a lot of the operations were not really difficult (depending on a person's experience) - and would have been much easier had I had access to former days' tools - the most tiring parts were to realize: "Right - that was one, only 27 to go!" (So happy that I am not into duets ). The amount of patience required was amazing. (Do you have a column for patience/operation, Jim? On a scale from 1-10, maybe?)

 

I was so inspired by Jim's calculation that I did one (at work) I will deliver it here tomorrow. The count is fairly low - it's only 28 buttons, and the bellows count as one, since I bought it.

 

/Henrik

[JimLucas]

I was so inspired by Jim's calculation that I did one (at work) I will deliver it here tomorrow. The count is fairly low - it's only 28 buttons, and the bellows count as one, since I bought it.

Ah, but someone assembled it.

 

My count completely ignores whether any subassemblies are assembled by someone other than the "finsl assembler". It's intended to list all the individual pieces that ultimately get assembled. For your count to be on the same basis, you should count the individual pieces that make up the bellows, too.

[Chris Ghent]

Some time ago I did this calculation, and achieved the figure of 1063 parts for a Jeffries style concertina with six fold bellows but no ebony veneer. Add on (from memory) 33 more per extra bellows fold and 18 per extra button. I included layers in a pad as separate parts, bushed single part buttons, rivetted action. Leaving aside the discrepancy between your figures and mine, which I am happy to accept without need for resolution, the number of parts, as you note, is not necessarily the most accurate way to assess the difficulty in manufacture. The 96 cards in a bellows, for example, are considerably easier to make than 1 reed pan, which in a basic form can require around 75 machining operations.

 

Just found my figures and the total was 1163 rather than 1063. This did not include 12 parts I am not in the habit of fitting.

 

Chris

[m3838]

Counting parts reminds me of some "infomercials" about CG animations, where they tell you how many pixels are in the frame, and how many frames in a second, and how many seconds are in the movie, and how many Terabites of storage it needed...

While there are many parts, it's entirely possible to design an instrument in such a way, that many details would be stamped by either a machine or with simple device by hand in multitudes for long lasting supply.

Same goes with details consisting of many parts, etc. So in each stage there is 1 to 5 operations to perform to make yet another, bigger detail until an instrument is ready.

If a maker faces more than 3-5 operations at each stage, I'm not sure if the process is designed correctly.

We are all doing something, often our work is very complex, needs lots of knowledge, years of study and experience - it helps to brake an assignment down to simple stages, even in the fields, where product is truly hand-made and unique.

I counted the parts in the single piano key mechanism - more than 50! So? They all are uniformed and can be made much more easily with the right rigs, by thousands. A piano maker doesn't make felt. At least shouldn't. Number of parts is not an indication of craftsmanship, nor it justifies the price.

No doubt, a concertina is complex mechanism, but Ceili, Lachenal and Stagi differ from each other not by the number of parts (at least it's not critical).

[m3838]

Again,

I would say, a reasonable process of bringing the cost down would be NOT (sorry) to outsource it to the Moon, but to use elimination logic. If it can be omitted - be gone. For example, machine screws, going into special kernels can be replaced with wood screws, treated with wax, or special glue to secure the threads,

plastic molds for the ends can save laser cutting, drilling, polishing, hand rest making. Molds for the action board saves on chambers making, sealing with swade, gluing posts, bracketts, machining.

It shouldn't dramatically lower the final cost to the buyer, but it would allow the makers to take more profit, but most importantly, would allow them to have some leeway, if the demand will fluctuate. You can't depend on every movie been blockbuster.

[bill_mchale]

Again,

I would say, a reasonable process of bringing the cost down would be NOT (sorry) to outsource it to the Moon, but to use elimination logic. If it can be omitted - be gone. For example, machine screws, going into special kernels can be replaced with wood screws, treated with wax, or special glue to secure the threads,

plastic molds for the ends can save laser cutting, drilling, polishing, hand rest making. Molds for the action board saves on chambers making, sealing with swade, gluing posts, bracketts, machining.

It shouldn't dramatically lower the final cost to the buyer, but it would allow the makers to take more profit, but most importantly, would allow them to have some leeway, if the demand will fluctuate. You can't depend on every movie been blockbuster.

 

I am not an expert on plastics, but my general impression is that the plastics that are used for making musical instruments tend to be rather dense plastics and are not really the sort that an individual could mold very effectively (if at all). For example, in whistles and flutes, where plastics have definitely made an impact, the plastic is usually machined, not molded into shape. Yes the plastic in cheaper whistles is molded, but most every one seems to agree that those whisltes are often very hit and miss affairs.

 

--

Bill

[Theodore Kloba]

My count completely ignores whether any subassemblies are assembled by someone other than the "finsl assembler". It's intended to list all the individual pieces that ultimately get assembled. For your count to be on the same basis, you should count the individual pieces that make up the bellows, too.

This could be taken to extremes:

• For any plywood part (is the action board in modern English-construction concertinas plywood?), we should count (at least) one part for each layer.
  
• Each hair in a piece of wool felt counts as one part. (Maybe more, if you count each blade of grass the sheep ate to produce that hair.)
  
• Any paper part could be millions, if you take every wood particle that was macerated and pressed to make that paper.
  

If we are to count items assembled by others, I think a reasonable breakpoint is with "standard" items:

• If I buy a hand strap as a stock item from a supplier, it counts as one.
  
• If I cut six parts from one piece of wood, it counts as six, even if it was plywood.
  
• If I have a job shop assemble a a component to my drawings/specifications, it counts for as many parts as they use.
  

I counted the parts in the single piano key mechanism - more than 50! So? They all are uniformed and can be made much more easily with the right rigs, by thousands.

The keys, hammers, and hammer shanks are all unique within a single piano. Most of other action parts are essentially uniform across the range, or occur in just a few variations.

I would say, a reasonable process of bringing the cost down would be NOT (sorry) to outsource it to the Moon, but to use elimination logic.

My personal logic was financial: If it requires a machine that I don't own and know how to operate, I job it out to someone (local) whose career is operating that kind of machine efficiently. I also use CNC/CAM to reduce the need to accurately measure and lay out.

If it can be omitted - be gone. For example, machine screws, going into special kernels can be replaced with wood screws, treated with wax, or special glue to secure the threads,

And then in fifty years, some hapless technician will be refitting it with threaded inserts because the wood no longer grips the screws. Of course, I do see your point: There are things that can be done to simplify.

plastic molds for the ends can save laser cutting, drilling, polishing, hand rest making.

Yes, but then you end up with a plastic concertina that you can't vary without making another expensive mold.

Molds for the action board saves on chambers making, sealing with swade, gluing posts, bracketts, machining.

Whether its a mold or some other form of automation, this could be a good place to reduce labor, but I think there will still be some hand work.

It shouldn't dramatically lower the final cost to the buyer, but it would allow the makers to take more profit, but most importantly, would allow them to have some leeway, if the demand will fluctuate. You can't depend on every movie been blockbuster.

I don't know about you, but if I saw two otherwise-identical instruments for sale, and one of them had molded plastic ends while the other had wood or metal, I'd expect the plastic one to be dramatically less expensive!

[JimLucas]

My count completely ignores whether any subassemblies are assembled by someone other than the "finsl assembler". It's intended to list all the individual pieces that ultimately get assembled. For your count to be on the same basis, you should count the individual pieces that make up the bellows, too.

This could be taken to extremes:

• For any plywood part (is the action board in modern English-construction concertinas plywood?), we should count (at least) one part for each layer.
  
• Each hair in a piece of wool felt counts as one part. (Maybe more, if you count each blade of grass the sheep ate to produce that hair.)
  
• Any paper part could be millions, if you take every wood particle that was macerated and pressed to make that paper.
  

I agree. That's extreme. I also think it strains the meaning of the verb "assemble", which I take to include deliberate individual manipuation of the separate component parts.

 

I think there are various different but useful and equally "reasonable" criteria, depending on one's perspective or needs. I think your second list is a good example, and in fact very close to the view I had in mind.

If we are to count items assembled by others, I think a reasonable breakpoint is with "standard" items:

• If I buy a hand strap as a stock item from a supplier, it counts as one.
  
• If I cut six parts from one piece of wood, it counts as six, even if it was plywood.
  
• If I have a job shop assemble a a component to my drawings/specifications, it counts for as many parts as they use.
  

And I think my example of concertina pads takes your plywood example one step further. I.e., if the plywood were not a stock item but custom made -- by you or for you, -- then each layer might be counted separately... but only for each sheet of plywood from which parts are cut, not for each piece cut from it.

[m3838]

I am not an expert on plastics, but my general impression is that the plastics that are used for making musical instruments tend to be rather dense plastics and are not really the sort that an individual could mold very effectively (if at all). For example, in whistles and flutes, where plastics have definitely made an impact, the plastic is usually machined, not molded into shape. Yes the plastic in cheaper whistles is molded, but most every one seems to agree that those whisltes are often very hit and miss affairs.

 

--

Bill

 

Bill,you compare apples and oranges. A whistle's body and holes are what makes the sound, a concertina's box is simply a vessel. A cheaper plastic will work just as perfectly as cheaper wood. But it's not only use of plastic that I'm advocating.

[Dana Johnson]

Again,

I would say, a reasonable process of bringing the cost down would be NOT (sorry) to outsource it to the Moon, but to use elimination logic. If it can be omitted - be gone. For example, machine screws, going into special kernels can be replaced with wood screws, treated with wax, or special glue to secure the threads,

plastic molds for the ends can save laser cutting, drilling, polishing, hand rest making. Molds for the action board saves on chambers making, sealing with swade, gluing posts, bracketts, machining.

It shouldn't dramatically lower the final cost to the buyer, but it would allow the makers to take more profit, but most importantly, would allow them to have some leeway, if the demand will fluctuate. You can't depend on every movie been blockbuster.

 

This Misses the whole point. Dies for molding plastic parts of any kind cost many thousands of dollars, This isn't generally done for runs that are under 10,000, as is true of anything stamped out etc. Most of the instruments that are made using these proceses , (like our New Kawai K3 piano with the carbon fiber composite action) are high production items. The tooling is generally paid for over a number of years. The only parts in a concertina that might be economically feasible for stamping, molding are the parts that go with each note, since these add up fast enough to eventually cover the costs.

 

I currently stamp out the posts for the button box's levers. I made the dies myself years ago and use them for my instruments as well. Since 1999, I believe they have ordered about 16000. All the ideas might sound great on paper before you bother checking on the expense of real production tooling, or dealt with instruments put together with wood screws that have stripped their holes, or discover for yourself the lousy acoustic properties of moldable plastics. (carbon fiber layups and glass fiber composites have been used successfully in certain stringed instruments, but the acoustic requirements of concertinas are completely different. Woods with the right acoustic properties, are easily workable not horribly labor intensive in their use in a concertina, and are already made using all appropriate jigs and fixtures, some of them pretty slick.

The special kernels as you call them are already purchsased by the 10,000, and the machine screws already in use and also purchased in like quantities are drastically superior to wood screws at only a few cents extra cost.

 

Most of these ideas as you say wouldn't likely reduce the cost of the instruments that much, since a lot of time involved is in assembly and final tuning, and the people who make the parts are pretty efficient. ( all free reed instruments that I know of including harmonicas , perhaps with the exception of some of the chinese instruments, are final tuned by hand, since reeds in place do not vibrate at exactly the same pitch as they do outside the instrument.) They would likely insure that the makers wouldn't see any profit at all for a number of years.

 

But the thing that production tooling does that is really a problem is that it costs so much to have it made that it locks you into a single design which, while it may seem good at the time, generally can be improved upon after some production experience. All of us makers have done this time and time again. Our limited capital outlay has allowed us to make important changes without having to discard a fortune in tooling. CNC is the only technology I know that makes a lot of sense in this line, allowing greater ease in design changes. Many of us already take advantage of this and If we don't use CNC ourselves, job out parts to people who already have the very expensive machines involved.

 

Yes, you could apply more industrial manufacturing techniques to the instrument and come up with a design that was made from parts produced on automated equipment. It might cost less, but none of us can afford the capital outlay to make it happen, or would ever have the customer volume required to make it eventually pay.

 

The current botom line for playable starter instruments seems to be Stagi. I once owned a Bastari tenor english and a Bastari Hayden. That company was bought out by Stagi, who couldn't keep that going without a substantial decrease in quality. The last time I saw one I was shocked at how bad they had become. Perhaps they sell thousands of these. (Rich would have a better idea of this than I ) They seem to be the best concertinas available in the few music stores that might have a concertina. Even they can't make a half decent starter instrument and make it pay.

 

We are not making guitars, pianos or violins, band instruments or anything that has a mass market. In this day of MP3 files and synthesized music we may be going the way of the dinosaurs. Concertinas are a niche market . Fortunately for us a growing one but we are lucky that any are being made by anyone at all. I commend anyone who undertakes to make a Stagi priced concertina that is worth owning for the amount of time it would take to save for something one step up, much less one worth keeping. I commend them because they will be doing a service to concertina players with little return for their efforts.

[Chris Allert]

We are not making guitars, pianos or violins, band instruments or anything that has a mass market. In this day of MP3 files and synthesized music we may be going the way of the dinosaurs. Concertinas are a niche market . Fortunately for us a growing one but we are lucky that any are being made by anyone at all. I commend anyone who undertakes to make a Stagi priced concertina that is worth owning for the amount of time it would take to save for something one step up, much less one worth keeping. I commend them because they will be doing a service to concertina players with little return for their efforts.

 

i completely agree with this point that we are lucky anyone is making concertinas at all. two other instruments worth considering, that are no longer made, and that are many orders of mangnitue more common and well known than the concertina are the electric piano and the tone-wheel organ (commonly called the rhodes piano and the hammond organ, though there were other makers of both instruments.) it's hard to imagine jazz or many other forms of music without these instruments, but neither of them have been made since the 1970s. and every musician i know says that there is no substitute for a real rhodes piano or hammond organ. i'm not sure the rhodes piano is really more difficult to build than a concertina, but no one is building them today. as for free-reed instruments, consider the harmonium. there are harmoniums being made today in india for indian music, but nobody builds the foot-pumped parlor reed organs that were once very common in homes and churches. as for the other kind of concertina (chemnitzers), is anyone building those anymore? the last time i checked, only one person was on a very limited scale.

 

i don't know if i agree that we are going the way of dinosaurs just yet (though this may be true for the human race...). pop music always uses a lot of electronic instruments, especially "obsolete" ones (see hammond organs and rhodes pianos, as well as minimoogs, mellotrons, etc. not all synthesizers are the same), but a lot of acoustic ones as well. if we are going the way of the dinosaurs, there are plenty of electronic instruments that went that way before us, so i wouldn't attribute it entirely to synthesizers. i wouldn't attribute it to mp3 files either. the vast majority of my mp3 files are of concertinas and uilleann pipes. as far as i can tell, mp3 files are just the latest version of the 78rpm record, except that anyone can make and distribute them for practically nothing. if anything, free digital recordings have vastly expanded our selection of recorded music and increased the demand for anything that is novel in any way.

 

i don't think that we're luddites for playing the concertina. (and i'm not sugessting that you were implying this). a century ago the concertina was high-tech, much like the modular synthesizer was in the late 1960s. i can't think of an instrument today that has really changed music the way synthesizers did in the late 60's or concertinas and accordions did when they were first invented. and still today building concertinas requires very advanced technology and skill. maybe the CNC made parts and computerized tuning isn't quite as high-tech now as it was 20 years ago, but the concertina as it is made today (based on what i've heard all the makers say on this forum) utilizes all the latest technology as much as it possibly can. and i still can't think of another instrument that has so much music-making potential in such a small and portable form. all the synthesizers i have need to be plugged in and need large amplifiers to make any sound and none of them have keyboard controls as compact as the concertina. with accordions, you pay quite a bit in size for the additional things they can do. i'm sure we all have a long list of reasons that we play the concertina instead of something else. those are a few of my reasons. but my point is that these are just a few reasons i have for not seeing the concertina as obsolete. something is obsolete when all the things it must do can be done better by something else.

 

well, that's probably enough from me for one day. thanks again, dana, for the work you're doing.

[JimLucas]

Yes, you could apply more industrial manufacturing techniques to the instrument and come up with a design that was made from parts produced on automated equipment. It might cost less, but none of us can afford the capital outlay to make it happen, or would ever have the customer volume required to make it eventually pay.

Dana, even you seem to have caught yourself in the trap of separating "costs" that can't really be separated. Capital investment is a cost.

 

Assume for the moment that the equipment which is purchased will last forever and the money is borrowed, with repayment of the principal deferred forever. A $50 thousand loan at 8% (to be honest, I don't know whether either number is reasonable right now; it's the principle I'm trying to illustrate) would cost $4000/year in interest alone. (For a 20-year loan, the annual payments would be about $5000, for a 10-year loan more than $7000.) If it's used to make the parts for 1000 concertinas per year, that's an additional $4 (or $5, or $7) per concertina. Doesn't sound like much, but then there are insurance and a maintenance contract (musts for any sensible business) and the expenses for those portions of employee time and shop space devoted to the equipment. And how many pieces of equipment? I.e., what total equipment cost per instrument?

 

If more instruments could be produced in a year without additional capital outlay and other not-per-piece costs, then these per-instrument amortized costs could be reduced. But I think that at this stage even a 1000/yr sales figure is far too optimistic. Anybody know how many concertinas Stagi makes and sells per year? What's the combined order backlog for Morse, Marcus, Edgley, Concertina Connection, Dipper, Dickinson, Suttner, and the rest making "vintage" and "hybrid" types? Some people are frustrated because they don't have the money, it's true, but how many would buy a concertina purely because they could get a decent one for a lower price than last year?

 

So any cost which isn't per-piece has to be divided by the number of instruments sold, and the lower that number, the higher the cost per instrument. Production isn't the end of the process. One also needs to factor in advertising and other sales costs.

[Theodore Kloba]

as for the other kind of concertina (chemnitzers), is anyone building those anymore? the last time i checked, only one person was on a very limited scale.

Right now, There are two makers that focus on the high-end ($8,000) quadruple-reed instruments only. I think the waiting list is about 2-3 years. Nobody in the US is making instruments for beginners or for players who want a reliable single-, double- or triple-reed instrument. There are a lot of old German instruments out there, but they almost always need some kind of restoration, and never end up as playable as a modern American instrument.

[Richard Morse]

So any cost which isn't per-piece has to be divided by the number of instruments sold, and the lower that number, the higher the cost per instrument. Production isn't the end of the process. One also needs to factor in advertising and other sales costs.

Another factor is the startup costs associated with increased production. The concertina parts need to be designed to be produced efficiently with the equipment (not only the parts, but the design method as well: designing in CAD and having the files converted into machine code for the equipment to understand). The equipment has to be set up (jigs, tooling, procedure) and programed to do their chores. Housing the equipment (shop space, power, air, water, vibration issues, etc.) needs to be deal with. People have to be hired on to operate and maintain the equipment. *More* people have to be hired - and taught - how to assemble all the parts the new equipment produces into concertinas. More very skilled people have to do the final tuning/voicing. And there needs to be the corresponding administration side to deal with all this (a very significant task!).

 

Before a single concertina is produced with a production process, it might take a year or more of setup and testing before a maker can see any return on an investment. yet during that entire time there are the additional costs of development and training to be paid for. While it's easy enough to hire on a machinist to run and maintain the CNC equipment, they'd have to be paid about $35/hour but it's incredibly hard to get talented and skillful people to assemble/test/tune concertinas for a lot less - unless we're able to make enough profit to pay everyone a market level salary!

 

I've been playing these numbers back and forth.... and figure that it would cost a minimum of $90,000 for the equipment and setup (that's not from scratch, but from a basis of already having the shop space, administration, design skills and basic staffing in place from which to teach new staff. Unfortunately commercial loans of this type are pretty much limited to 10 years, and if figuring that you have to borrow the additional money to may the first year's payments (as you'd not have any income yet from the project) is $104K @ 8% over those 9 remaining years comes out to about $1300/month or $15,600/year.

 

Even Wheatstone in it's most productive year in the mid 1920's was making just over 400 concertinas/year. If the concertina world were able to absorb many instruments, then the increased production costs would only be about $40/instrument. That's a lot of instruments - 33/month! Maybe a more realistic figure is half that? Of course the equipment could produce less expensive quality concertinas too.

 

There's also the issue "bankability" of such a venture. Traditional banks just won't do it.

[DavidFR]

A $50 thousand loan at 8% (to be honest, I don't know whether either number is reasonable right now; it's the principle I'm trying to illustrate) would cost $4000/year in interest alone. (For a 20-year loan, the annual payments would be about $5000, for a 10-year loan more than $7000.)

As a peon of the banking industry, 8% would be pretty good for a small business/commercial loan right now. Prime is currently at 8.25% and most financial institutions (mine included) add on a point or two if not more for most kinds of loans/customers. Then add in that you need to be an established business (banks are not generally venture capitalists) and provide a certain number of financial statements to even be considered. And then consider - is it an industry banks would consider lending for? It's more than a little out of the box.

 

In the end, the problem is one of volume. For an outfit like The Button Box which has (relatively) high volume, maybe they are able to procure that kind of financing. But for someone just getting started, good luck.

 

Maybe instead of (as was suggested in another forum) donating money to support apprentices we should establish a non-profit or mutual lending institution to provide low-cost loans to interested concertina manufacturers to get them the equipment they need. A combination of philanthropy and venture capitalism to put more high-(est) quality instruments on the market.

[Dana Johnson]

Dana, even you seem to have caught yourself in the trap of separating "costs" that can't really be separated. Capital investment is a cost.

 

Assume for the moment that the equipment which is purchased will last forever and the money is borrowed, with repayment of the principal deferred forever. A $50 thousand loan at 8% (to be honest, I don't know whether either number is reasonable right now; it's the principle I'm trying to illustrate) would cost $4000/year in interest alone. (For a 20-year loan, the annual payments would be about $5000, for a 10-year loan more than $7000.) If it's used to make the parts for 1000 concertinas per year, that's an additional $4 (or $5, or $7) per concertina. Doesn't sound like much, but then there are insurance and a maintenance contract (musts for any sensible business) and the expenses for those portions of employee time and shop space devoted to the equipment. And how many pieces of equipment? I.e., what total equipment cost per instrument?

 

If more instruments could be produced in a year without additional capital outlay and other not-per-piece costs, then these per-instrument amortized costs could be reduced. But I think that at this stage even a 1000/yr sales figure is far too optimistic. Anybody know how many concertinas Stagi makes and sells per year? What's the combined order backlog for Morse, Marcus, Edgley, Concertina Connection, Dipper, Dickinson, Suttner, and the rest making "vintage" and "hybrid" types? Some people are frustrated because they don't have the money, it's true, but how many would buy a concertina purely because they could get a decent one for a lower price than last year?

 

So any cost which isn't per-piece has to be divided by the number of instruments sold, and the lower that number, the higher the cost per instrument. Production isn't the end of the process. One also needs to factor in advertising and other sales costs.

 

These are all great points. Mine was only meant to be that the costs of mass production requires a continuous mass of instruments to be sold to be cost effective. Also of course that from the outside, concertinas may seem to be made up of a lot of superfluous stuff. If you don't make them it is hard to appreciate the thought that has gone into making them even possible to sell at the prices they go for, much less being able to reduce it by the amounts spoken of.

Dana

[Geoffrey Crabb]

Slowly catching up with some of the topics, I submit this in response to the original question and it may be of interest.

 

The following, lists the number of individual parts required in the making of a standard ‘Crabb’ Octagonal 48 Key + air release key, English system Concertina with metal tops and 6 fold bellows. All components were made or fashioned from stock materials in the workshop. Screws however, although made for a long time in the workshop, were in later years, bought in.

Parts have been grouped into sections under major assembly headings with a brief description and quantity of each part.

 

Bellows.

Fabric Tapes (Frame) 2

Fabric Tapes (Folds) 6

Cards 112

Fabric internal Hinges (long) 48

Fabric internal Hinges (short) 56

Leather external Hinges 56

Gussets 56

Leather Band (Frame) 2

Leather Band (Fold) 6

Papers 112

 

Section Total 456

 

 

Bellows Frames

Sides (made into 1 ‘shape’, then cut to form 2 frames). 8

Mitre Keys (8x2) 16

End Bolt Blocks (nuts) 16

End Bolts 16

Pan Support Blocks 16

Lining Leathers 2

 

Section Total 74

 

 

Pans

Boards 2

Centre Rings 2

Divisions 48

Stopping Blocks 48

Valves 96

Valve Pins 96

Division Lining Leathers 48

Stopping Block Lining Leathers 48

 

Section Total 388

 

 

Reeds (Notes)

Frames 96

Tongues 96

Blocks (Clamps) 96

Screws 192

 

Section Total 480

 

 

End Boxes

Sides (made into 1 ‘shape’, then cut to form 2 frames). 8

Bottoms 2

Veneers 16

Desks (Discs) 2

Desks (Discs) Pins 4

Strap & Fingerplate Posts 2

Bushing Wood supports 8

 

Section Total 44

 

Action (Inc. Air Release)

Levers 49

Uprights (Pivot Posts) 49

Rivets 49

Springs 49

Keys (Studs) 49

Lever Bushings 49

Key Pin Washers 49

Lever Pills 49

Pallets (Pads) 49

Pallet Straps 49

 

Section Total 490

 

 

Metal Tops (End plates)

Plates 2

Key Bushing Woods 2

Key Bushings 48

Attaching Screws or Rivets 8

 

Section Total 60

 

 

Finger Rests

Rests 2

Rivets 4

Centre Screws 2

 

Section Total 8

 

Straps

Internal Plates 2

ditto Leather Cushions 2

ditto Tapes 4

Leather Covering Pieces 4

Adjustment Clip (2 Parts each) 4

Centre Fixing Screws 2

Short Fixing Screws 4

Leather Nuts (for latter) 4

 

Section Total 24

 

 

Total Parts 2020

 

 

Add Extra Parts to above as follows:-

 

For Screw adjustment straps 2

 

Per extra Bellows Fold 66

 

Per extra Key 33

 

Fitted case parts have not been included in the count although a case was regarded as a necessary requirement.

 

It is almost impossible to estimate the time expended on each section but total time spent on each of this type of instrument would be between 230 and 250 hours.

A list of separate manufacturing operations involved runs into 6 typed sides of A4 but I do not propose to submit this here.

The reference to 1500- 1600 parts would more relate to a 31 Key Anglo.

 

Geoff Crabb

[JimLucas]

The following, lists the number of individual parts required in the making of a standard ‘Crabb’ Octagonal 48 Key + air release key, English system Concertina with metal tops and 6 fold bellows.

...

Thanks, Geoff.

 

I'll check the details against my programming later, but it's good to have confirmation that my results are close to yours. I see I missed a couple of things (e.g., "mitre keys"), but different specs (wood vs. metal ends, capped vs. one-piece buttons) look to account for most of the difference. And for most purposes, we're in "complete" agreement, with "over 2000".