This piano is very early and archaic as compared to the less bulky,
more efficient, less leaky, beautifully designed and built, late
'teens, single valve Aeolian and late model Duo-Art.

I believe manufacturers of player piano mechanisms knowingly
manufactured and marketed products they were unsure of or had major
misconceptions about how well they would function and hold up.  There
was money to be made and manufacturers couldn't make it if they weren't
in the game.

Fierce competition encouraged the development of better designed
machines.  This competition may also have lead to rushing through on
production of unproven designs.  Player piano rebuilders improve their
skills, in part, by making mistakes and corrections as well.  I am not
harshly judging.

It's the rare player rebuilder who, 90% or better of the time, can
rebuild a poorly designed and or built player mechanism, making it easy
to pump for many years.  This kind of feat might be similar to training
the third guy from the left in Darwin's theoretical evolutionary chart
to function well in today's society.

There are some purists who believe that all these player mechanisms
are designed well and that rebuilders are to be harshly blamed when
the rebuilt player doesn't meet lofty expectations.  We don't even know
for sure how well these machines functioned and held up originally.

100 hours is more than a reasonable amount of time to spend on this
stack.  I believe skilled player rebuilders should get compensated for
all the time they spend.  This instrument, a Weber and a rare foot pump
grand, has a lot going for it.  My first instinct would be to think of
another rebuilder (other than myself) who might be capable of handling
the job.  If I absolutely had to get involved, I would put the following
in writing, in the contract: "I will try my best to make it easy to pump,
no guarantees."  Plan B would involve the installation of a remote pump.

Bill Maguire