Nicholas Simons makes valid points regarding the conversion of the
less common instruments.  Although he does not criticise individuals as
such, I can see that his comments are directed at potential restorers
such as myself.  Perhaps I should therefore explain.  Firstly let me
describe the circumstances surrounding the upright Hupfeld that I
converted.

I acquired it from Brian Chesters from his "Pianola House" in Preston,
UK.  It narrowly averted his bonfire.  I was impressed with it mainly
because it was so responsive and apparently airtight.  The fact that it
was 73 note did not deter me unduly.  The general condition was fairly
poor, it had no castors and the casework was somewhat weathered, and so
I decided to convert it and use it for Jazz Festivals.

I concluded that the knocks that are inevitable when transporting
players around the country on a regular basis would not substantially
worsen its appearance.  Roll availability also dictated circumstances
somewhat.

I would be the first to admit that the conversion was hardly an
improvement on the original design.  I tidied it up, did my best, and
that instrument is now out there somewhere, as I subsequently sold it
to an enthusiast who saw me with it at Looe Jazz Festival, UK.  It is
giving pleasure and it works well.

Next, to the push-up Claviola, which I acquired but have not started
work on.  I have examined it more closely and this is how it looks:

The trackerbar is 88-note with hole #1 on the right hand side.  New
short rubber tubing connects the trackerbar and the original copper
tubing that leads to the valve chest.  73 holes only are tubed, with
no crossover.

As far as I can see the spoolbox has not been modified.  The result
is that the roll winds from front to back, with the take up spool at
the rear.  I imagine this to be original, and correct.  Clearly the
resultant effect is the reverse of what is desired.  The trackerbar is
tubed with hole #1 at the treble end instead of the bass.  Now I see
various possible solutions to this - there may be others - and I would
be grateful for input from the group :

1. Turn the trackerbar around, reconnect as at present, and play 88
note rolls "inside-out" - that is, turned over.  I did this initially
with the upright. It's okay but it rather messes up the rolls.

2. Convert it back to 73 note.

3. Re-tube to suit "proper" 88 note operation (albeit 73 notes really)
by replacing the copper tubing with new flexible tubing so that what
crossover is necessary can be tidily contained in the void above the
valve chest rather than immediately beneath the trackerbar.

Personally, I don't like #1.  I have done it before and its not very
good.  Once you go down the 88-note road you may as well go all the
way.  However, I do not wish to seriously damage this particular
instrument - I respect its historical value and would not wish to do
something aesthetically unpleasant or irreversible.  I therefore rule
out changing the spoolbox arrangement.

As for #2, who would play it? I wouldn't.  Okay, so someone else might,
but demand in the past has hardly been overwhelming! That is why John
Farrell gave it to me.

So I favour #3.  It's reversible and I am quite prepared to document
my work, and what is believed to be the Claviolas original design, for
posterity.  And I shall take it around the UK and display it.  And, as
I did at last year's Keswick Jazz Festival with a Duo-Art, give the odd
concert with it and tell people all about the various types and makes
of Pianola.

I was watching "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (again) last night.
As Fred C. Dobbs said about the interloper Cody, "Why don't we just
haul out our cannons and let him have it?"

Okay, folks, start loading!

Roger Waring - The Pianola Workshop
Solihull, United Kingdom
www.pianola.co.uk