On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:02:54 -0500, Nicholas Bunning wrote:
> However in all of them,  only the last 3 or 4 notes (max) were on the 
> separate bridge,,,

most often too, the strings of the sperate bridge(s) in these 17th c. 
instruments are longer, not shorter. Obviously this again points to 
some short of short octave and not to scale compensation. 
The only examples of scale compensation known to me are:
1) Cristofori's Spinetone which has a seperate bridge in the high 
treble for the iron strings while most of the instrument is in brass.
2) both extant large 5 octave clavichords from David Schiedmayer which 
have two separate bridges for an iron treble and shorter scaled brass 
bass divided at the center.

On the continent, the divided bridge did not catch on in piano making, 
discounting squares, for quite some time after Broadwood started it. 
the 1808 Nanette Streicher at Nuremberg already has 6 1/2 oct. but a 
single bridge, the 1811 Nanette near it in the basement actually has a 
divided bridge and this must be one of the earliest with the laminated 
frame. None of the later ones until after 182? do however; all have a 
straight bridge. It thus seems that Nanette did not like the results.
On the other hand, the ca 1814 Dieudonné&Schiedmayer I restored a while 
back has a divided bridge. I am not aware of any grand from D&S with a 
straight bridge. While one expects a divided bridge in a "Londner" 
piano as Schiedmayer termed his grand with English action, the ones 
with German action like the one I did have it, too.
Early Grafs have a straight bridge, too, tho Graf seems to have made 
both styles at the same time. The 1823 in Stuttgart has a straight 
bridge.  By then, most were making divided bridges.

b