Damon Atchison asked the following questions.  I can only answer from a
UK perspective, which is rather limited.

> 1. Why were the first player piano systems only 65-note?

65-note was one of the Aeolian Co's improvements to the 58-note system,
adopted by Melville Clark for his prototype player upright finished in
1895 (but not marketed until 1899).  Aeolian did consider an 88-note roll
to the same standard -- i.e., making the roll even wider -- but they ran
into two problems in experimentation: 1) even at 6 holes-to-the-inch the
end note perforations tended to miss if the paper became damp, and 2) the
cost of the instrument became critical.  Adding automatic tracking put
the idea out of reach.

They only converted to the 9/inch standard under threat of competition
from Clark and (later) Hupfeld, and even then they chickened out of
making the tracking automatic until it was obvious ordinary folk couldn't
be trusted with hand tracking.  The price problem with 88-note solved
itself by the market being far bigger than anyone had imagined, allowing
economies of scale.

> 2. How expensive were player pianos to the average consumer of the
> era from circa 1911-1929?

In UK, expensive -- over 100 pounds (when a small house cost 200).  A very
cheap player was the Triumph Autoleon which only cost =L=65 in 1925, when
a good clerk's salary was =L=250 per annum.  Low-quality instruments have
never worked well in the UK -- the 1960s Aeolian-American consoles were a
total disaster here -- and so weren't significant in the market.

> 3. What (88-note) player brand was considered to be the best in
> terms of it's system and/or piano?

Were you asking a salesman then, or a knowledgeable enthusiast ?  Global
knowledge of players was abysmal in those days; look how player makers
tried to harness clients to one make of roll.  The few people who knew
would have agreed with present-day enthusiasts: an Aeolian-fitted
Steinway or a Hupfeld-fitted Bluethner.  In general, money did mean
quality.

Dan Wilson