I’ve constructed a working model of a bass regulator from Garvin’s book, and was suspicious about the resulting placement of the key touches. I decided to do a dimensional reference drawing in AutoCAD, and found the following, using measurements taken and scaled from the book:
For a reference datum line, I am using the leading edge of the mainstock.
The tip of the top touch on the tenor regulator is 1/2" from the mainstock; we may take this as OK.
The tip of the corresponding touch on the baritone is 3/4" from the datum line, and the corresponding measurement on the bass gives 7/8" from the same reference datum.
I did a copy of the drawing and moved the items in the copy with the following results:
Moving the baritone back 1/4" (turn the socket tenon 1/4" longer than shown) and the bass bar back 3/8" puts the first touch tips of the baritone and bass in line with that on the tenor. Of the lowest (corresponding) keys, the touch tip of the tenor and bass then line up, and the corresponding touch on the baritone is only 1/8" upwards of this line, easily corrected on the key itself.
The wooden separator must have it’s air-channel relief cut 3/8" closer to the mouth to compensate for moving the bass bar.
Those are the only errors I can confirm, and they affect only full sets, of course.
I believe Mike Gravina may have made his chanter from the Garvin book (this was about 25 years ago), and he did say it took him making 14 chanters before he got one right. I have read that the chanter dimensions in Garvin are suspect.
This particular “error” doesn’t worry me too much, as some folks find a slightly angled key arrangement up at the top suits their hand position better. Bear in mind that the mainstock itself will be angled with respect to the hand, when in use. It’s a personal taste thing, I can see an argument in favor of the “angled” arrangement you describe.
I would be more concerned with internal dimensions, toneholes, and drone lengths.
I don’t have the Garvin book myself and so cannot comment on specifics.
I presume John has had the courtesy to inform Wilbert o his heineous mistakes I look forward to Johns own superior book on the subject especially as wi his last sentence he is rubbishing Wilberts’..What feckin arrogance…Moderator lock this post or better still trash it…
Uilliam
Interesting, I had no idea they shouldn’t necessarily line up; I don’t have any full sets on hand to look at, and of those few I’ve seen before in close-up photos I haven’t noticed any angular alignment.
I’m a novice at these things, and am not trying to diss Garvin; what I repeated about the chanter in particular is what someone else experienced, and comments I’ve read (in this forum, IIRC) that Garvin’s chanter dimensions seem suspect. One piper speculated that “It’s possible that some of Wilbert’s dimensions are his own extrapolation, I don’t know”.
I don’t think that Garvin is being rubbished here. If you wanted a bespoke suit/kilt, rather than an “off the peg” your tailor would ask you whether you “dressed” left or right, wouldn’t he?
And it should be noted that the implied criticism is coming from someone who is a actually making a full set of pipes.
A straight or angled reg key arrangement doesn’t concern me that much - it’s a matter of taste. I would be concerned if, as Johnpipes puts it, “the tip of the top touch on the tenor regulator is 1/2” from the mainstock." If the drone on/off switch sticks up between the bari & tenor regs, as is usually the case, 1/2" does not leave much clearance between the top reg key and the switch. It may be difficult to play this key without the hand bumping into the drone switch. I’d like to see this distance be at least 1 inch.
It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally I play regs without drones sounding. I want to hit the high reg notes without much risk of bumping the drone switch & turning them on.
Garvin’s book (1978) is important and valuable. In the “old days” - the 1980’s - it was the only printed source of UP plans I could find. But this is not to say it should be viewed uncritically.
This was another item I’ve wondered about; I noticed this problem of bumping the drone switch, which seems also to stick up much further in these drawings than on some sets I’ve seen photos of – in pix of Quinn’s and other comtemporary makers pipes, for example, the switches I’ve noticed don’t stick up very far from the rim of the mainstock, and I notice that the regulators generally seem to be arranged so the touches begin further from the stock than in Garvin’s drawings.
The fact that no one seems to know what maker’s pipes Garvin’s drawings were made from complicates matters for me slightly – some of these matters that cause confusion for me might be easily resolved by looking at photos of pipes by the maker in question, which is hard to do if you don’t know which maker’s style of pipes you’re looking for.
Okay so there maybe some variation in the angle of the keys when looking from above,but what about when looking from the side,should they all be at the same height,or would it be better to have some higher than others??
The only thing I know of which may suggest otherwise is that Pat Sky’s book has drawings of a Rowsome set, I believe of Leo’s work, and it has larger bores overall than the pipes in Garvin’s book. The hole sizes and postitions are very different, too, as well as some elements of style between the two. This doesn’t prove or disprove the possibility, of course.
What I would be really curious about, on other’s full sets, is the distance from where the mainstock cup leaves the bag, and the tip of the first baritone regulator touch; also, the distance between that tip and the face of the mainstock.
If the touches are further from the stock on some pipes, this would seem to imply that the overall length of the stock and cup might be a little shorter (to keep the keys in the proper position relative to the player)? In the Garvin drawings, the tenor has a very short tenon, so I don’t see that one moving.
What I’m trying to get at here, is determining the factors affecting the position of the regulator keys as a group, relative to the player’s wrist, as this seems problematic with my prototypes, and I’d like to find out what may be typical. There is of course the other problem of the stock cup not being in the exact best position on my bag, so the pipes don’t point quite right, which didn’t affect things significantly as a half-set; a new bag is another side of this project.
I look forward to Johns own superior book on the subject especially as wi his last sentence he is rubbishing Wilberts’..What feckin arrogance…Moderator lock this post or better still trash it…
