Dr Calhoun scripsit (inter alia):

>The Flemish overrail (which I routinely add to any French instrument
>I'm required to voice and regulate) or the Italian front stop
>rail can function as overload springs, nicely set to take any
>extra force from the fingers to limit the thumping which a jack
>rail can transmit to the case, especially if the case itself is
>light (as in an Italian) or the jack rail is rather light (as
>in most Zuckermann instruments, particularly the Flemish ones.)

This last statment is true in comparison with, e.g., the Taskins in the
Russell Collection.  However, O'Brien's drawings on pp.94/5 of his book
show that the Ruckers jackrails were only 10 mm thick, whereas the ZHI rail
is 12 mm thick and 15.5 mm where the 4ft jacks strike it.

O'Brien also writes (in the section on the virginals, p.86): "Since the
upper touch-limit bar of the jack controls the depth of touch of the keys,
the jackrail in a Ruckers instrument serves only to prevent the jacks from
jumping out of their slots and to reflect them as quietly and quickly as
possible back into their playing position.  It does not control the depth
of touch."  Under harpsichords he adds: "Except that they are wider, the
harpsichord jackrails are very similar in shape and functino to the
virginal jackrails."

Does this point to a fundamental difference between Flemish and French
design, or did the French omit the touchrail because they considered it
unnecessary?

>Way and the subsequent drawings somehow don't allow much room;
>maybe the cloths supplied are a little thicker than those drawn.
>I don't think I'd cut wood away from the jack rail in that
>Flemish, which is not a very hefty construction anyhow. How
>about being a trifle historical and shaving a mm or two from
>the jack tops, at least in the bass? There should still be
>enough jack to hold an adequate damper ...

Ouch!

david