I _am_ against using Perflex for pouches like most everyone
reading MMDigest.  However, I have run across maybe a dozen 10-
to 30-year-old Universal player actions with Perflex pouches in
Baldwin or Story and Clark pianos.  The majority of the player
systems function well and all they need is tuning, minor adjustments.

I understand from the experiences of some others that Perflex related
failures are common in these.  However, when I have run across major
problems in Universal player systems, they were almost always related
to the roll drive motor, the circuit boards, the suction box, pneumatic
cloth peeling away from the plastic pneumatics, and the plastic
pneumatic arms falling off the plastic pneumatics.

QRS is still selling parts for several 1980s Universal player systems,
sometimes taking them in for repairs where the original Perflex pouches
are in good working order.

I understand that the experiences of some others have been different
with Universal players.  I am not defending Perflex or any experimental
unproven materials for use in pouches.  Given the "horror stories"
told by many, I think it's too big a risk to take to use the stuff.
I have seen Perflex pouch failures in several PPCo rewind pneumatics,
and others with _no_ failures after many years.  I once ran across a
1980's orchestrion which needed to be entirely re-pouched.

I did find it interesting that Perflex doesn't always fail prematurely
and often functions well for more than 20-25 years and remains strong
and flexible.  In one instance, when I opened up a 25-year-old Universal
player stack, the Perflex pouches were very strong and flexible with no
visible signs of disintegration.

What I have experienced leads me to suspect different batches of
Perflex were manufactured in different ways.  I'll never use Perflex
even if they _do_ figure out what went wrong with the material in those
pouches which failed, and solve the problem.

Bill Maguire