-- forwarded message, please reply to sender and MMD --

 [ This letter was published originally in the discussion forum
 [ IFMMO (International Forum for Mechanical Music Organizations),
 [ on 18 Sep 2001.  It is republished in MMDigest with the kind
 [ permission of the author and IFMMO.

Whilst very few organs are in original condition due to rebuilding
during their working lives, and many as a result carry names of other
than the original builder, it seems very unfortunate that in this age
of preservation the practise of wholesale rebuilding of organs to
vastly expanded scales is occurring.

However, it is not surprising that it happens -- you only have to look
at the traction engine scene in England where innumerable rare steam
road rollers, etc., have been turned into fake showmans engines.

The fact is that human nature causes some people to not be satisfied
with a "superb new instrument" because they know that some people
will always regard it as "second class" because it has no historical
parentage.  So they get an old instrument and rebuild it to give the
superb new instrument a pedigree.

Another phenomenon is inventing histories for instruments to make the
owners or potential owners feel good.  A recent example in Australia
was an instrument "thought to have some original Gavioli parts" which
was actually a completely new instrument built in the 1990's out of
an old and well seasoned wardrobe and various old floorboards.  As
a result of its fake pedigree its "value" more than doubled when it
was offered for sale by its second or third owner.

Getting back to the original letter, it is hard to see what positive
action can be taken to prevent organ owners doing anything they like to
their instruments, except to create an atmosphere through letters and
articles in magazines to make owners think twice before inappropriate
restoration work takes place.

Richard Ellis
Australian Mechanical Organ Society