Restoring Old Instruments

[Ron Nossaman]

At 02:58 AM 11/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I would appreciate the advise of PTG members on the proper way to
>restore old and antique musicial instruments.  Does the  PTG believe
>that all old musicial instruments should be restored 100% originial as
>they were made in the factory?  Or is it proper to "alter" the originial
>design of a old instrument? 

* This, ultimately, has to be worked out with the customer. If they want it
to work like new, but don't want you touching it, then you had just as well
pass because that isn't going to happen. The reality is that something that
isn't currently functional will have to be changed to some degree in order
to make it functional. The degree of change, either necessary or desirable,
is what's at issue here. First off, old doesn't automatically equate to
antique. People are constantly calling me to reel off a fifteen minute
memorized litany describing the fabulously valuable antique baby grand
upright piano with the gorgeous case and the beautiful tone that they stole
at auction for a mere $3000, and the man said those keys that don't work
will be fixed with tuning. It's usually a 1923 Vose, or some such beater,
and isn't worth the time the phone call took, much less a condemnation
service call. If the instrument is truly a historically significant piece,
pass it on to someone qualified to do the enshrinement, otherwise it's just
old, needs extensive work, and will not be in original condition when you
finish. This has to be settled with the customer in either case, before
anything is done.   


 
>I ask this because in addition to tuning pianos, I restore old reed
>(pump) organs.  The Reed Organ Society has a monthly magazine and a
>internet list which I belong.  I recently posted that I tune reed organs
>to A-440 (most were tuned to around A-435). Not one reed organ
>technician thought it was proper at all to tune them to A-440, but they
>said they should be left at their originial pitch.    

* Why?



>I got all kinds of "hate" mail from the purists for  daring to alter the
>design of these valuable instruments from their originial design.  I
>mentioned I sometimes do a few other alterations to make them a better
>instrument.  Well, I have been sick over this since because I have no
>desire to harm the historic value of any old antique.  

* I've seen some truly shabby design 'features' in reed organs through the
years. Having the customers' permission to do what is necessary to make the
thing work reliably, I make whatever changes I consider to be reasonable and
necessary for function. Restoring a poorly engineered system to it's
original configuration will probably win you a series of call backs and
complaints of poor instrument performance for your trouble. Do which ever
you think is 'right'. As for the value of reed organs, you almost have to
pay someone to haul them off in this part of the country. Selling one for
even the cost of the rebuild is virtually impossible, but people will pay to
have one they paid way too much for rebuilt. Go figure. These are the kind
of sensible attitudes you are up against.  



>Please tell me what some of you technicians feel about this.  If reed
>organs should not be altered or changed in any way, wouldn't this apply
>to all anitique musicial instruments as well as pipe organs,  old
>radios, old wind up phonographs and even furniture? 
>
>The purists  believe that everything should stay the same on restoring
>old antiques.  What is the general thinking on this today and where do
>we draw the line.  
>
>Thanks
>
>Jim Turner 

* Ultimately, it's the owner's call. If you can't agree, don't take on the work.

 Ron