In 010318 MMDigest John Tuttle speculates on the aging factors in
piano rolls.

A thing that never fails to strike British visitors to US collectors is
the perilous state of their rolls.  They seem fifty years older than
ours.  They've gone brown and brittle and sometimes pieces break off
with little provocation.

Paper conservationists in other fields look for a humidity of around
70% and an ambient temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit.  If you visit
county archives here, you take an overcoat.  Great Britain naturally
satisfies these conditions pretty closely, except in high summer.  I've
bought agonisingly damp roll collections kept in garages and attics,
with mould on the boxes and D-rings coming off with weakened glue, and
after six months in a half-heated house like mine, they have sprung
happily back to life.  So damp isn't a killer.

However, I don't think that's the whole story.  It's also noticeable
that a much tougher paper was used generally in Europe.  The only rolls
here which are behaving like the American ones are the very early
65-note rolls, which of course were also all American.

It does seem that in the economies of the intense competition of the
1920s, proper paper stabilisation became a victim.  The player piano
was more of a middle-class preoccupation in Europe and with only a
small number of suppliers and the competition being more in musical
styles than cheapness, its customers could afford a better product.

(I say that, but immediately doubt it.  Typical prices in the middle
1920s here were 4 shillings for a small roll (= 80 cents), 5 for a
medium ($1) and as much as 12 ($2.40) for a big double-size roll like
the Animatic handplayed complete sonata movements.  I've noticed $1.25
was a typical QRS dance roll price.  Perhaps I have that wrong.)

Dan Wilson, London