Jonathan Holmes did raise an interesting question about everything
looking new in the restoration of mechanical music.  While there is
no 'right' answer, common practice in collecting has taken different
approaches for different items.

Refinishing mechanical antique toys is a big no-no.  Old cast iron
items such as coin banks, toy trucks and cars, and other items of
similar nature loose value if refinished.

But what about cars?  Is a 1916 Rolls Royce to be left "as is",
or rather, restored to the hilt?  Common practice is to restore with
complete detail.

It is my opinion that restoring mechanical musical instruments should
include refinishing to original appearance.  Why on earth would someone
want to spend a large sum on restoring the performing mechanics and
leave the finish in a completely worn out status?  Band organs, as
an example, usually have had a rough life of commercial use and their
appearance is downright ugly until rescued by a modern collector.

The bottom line _is_ the bottom line: money.  Most mechanical music
restorations conform to the budget of the owner.  Most owners have
limited funds and must determine where to draw the line on restoration
costs.  When personal wealth permits, a more thorough restoration often
takes place.  I believe that is what is found in the Reblitz book.  It
really sets the standard of what is attainable, and best of all, these
collections have been generously shared with thousands of collectors,
and now through the book, thousands more will can share in the original
glory of these machines.  What is wrong with that?

Is it more appropriate to say, "We have restored the piano to 50
percent of it's original luster, to be more authentic?"  I think not.
The best part of a first class restoration, other than seeing "how they
looked when new", is that the instrument has not been harmed.

Even museum paintings of classics are cleaned, when funds are available.

Bob Taylor