Mark Yaffe wrote in 000420 MMDigest:

> Why, when someone today manufactures a mechanical music item ... do
> they call it by the original company's name and model number?  It
> would seem to me that it should be named after the current maker...

Over the years I had many discussions about this question, and today
I am still not sure what is right or wrong. I feel that, if somebody
builds an entirely new instrument, based on his own design and ideas,
I would without doubt recommend putting the builder's name on top of
the instrument.

But if somebody builds a replica of any existing old instrument, then
I believe it is right to use the original company's name, because the
contemporary manufacturer neither designed nor invented the instrument.
And, most replicas play the old music rolls, based on the original
company's design.

> However, many things made today are called after the original and
> I feel it misleads the uninformed and does a great disservice to the
> collector and manufacturer of the originals.

Maybe I am wrong, but I do not know of any replica, bearing the
original manufacturer's name, which has been used to mislead even an
uninformed collector.  I feel that using the original name on a perfect
replica shows great respect, and the appreciation of the new builder
for the original company.  For example, think about one of the greatest
and most accepted replica projects, that has been manufactured by the
Mechanical Music Manufactory company of Siegfried Wendel, the wonderful
Hupfeld Phonoliszt Violina.  Can you imagine how much courage it takes
to start such a project?

> The worst part of these fabrications is that it wastes many talented
> restorers time in building, rebuilding, and fixing them.

As a long-time restorer of mechanical instruments, I never had the
feeling of wasting my time in building or working at new instruments.
In my opinion, there are several good reasons for spending time to
build or to copy an existing instrument:

1.  Building an entirely new instrument is a lot of fun!
2.  There is still a market for such instruments.
3.  Building (or copying) an instrument from scratch is a real
    challenge for any person who spends most of his time in restoring
    restoring old instruments.
4.  Copying any old instrument adds a lot of experience.

What is wrong to work at or fix a replica?  That does, in my opinion,
in no way affect the builder's earnings.

I believe that it is very important to go on today with the building of
new mechanical musical instruments.

The Seeburg KT special, Dave Ramey's Banjo Orchestra, Siegfried
Wendel's products like the Hupfeld Phonoliszt Violina, the Weber Maesto
replica, the great Philipps Paganini Monstre Orchestrion, etc., and the
MWM (Musikwerkstatt Monschau) products like the Hupfeld Helios Pepita
orchestrion, the Alfred Bruder band organ, the Bacigalupo 45-key organ,
etc., and others -- these are all examples that the field of mechanical
musical instruments has not dried up.

Best regards,
Thomas Jansen
Musikwerkstatt Monschau