As I guessed when I first read Jonathan Holmes' first posting on this
subject, it has aroused much interest.

In my opinion, Eliyahu Shahar has hit the nail right on the head when
he says "I personally believe that the goal should not be to oppose
restoration but redesign."  I am not sure that John A. Tuttle's
calculations revolving around the precise age of an 'antique' have much
relevance.

As the owner and proprietor of a specialist antique clock restoration
and sales business (though I restore mechanical music instruments
myself) I know from experience that the treatment of examples dating
from around the conception of time recording (i.e. items from around
the early 17th century) need to be treated differently from those of
100 years later, the reason being that the history of timekeeping is
involved and that the concept of having the thing running 24 hours a
day for years is unrealistic.

However, items dating from around 1680 onwards are quite capable
of running for long periods and we sometimes have to make replica
(i.e., an exact duplicate) of wheels or pinions in order to make them
run properly.  We do record this fact and advise that the original
part be kept with the item in perpetuity so that the history can be
preserved.

There are many horological items that are a lot less than 100 years old
which can be exceedingly rare (e.g., early electrical timekeepers), but
we do not feel that these should be treated with less reverence because
of their age.  They need preserving and conserving just as much as any
earlier piece.  What we do _not_ do is to veneer an original oak long case
clock in walnut because it 'looks better' and might be more saleable at
a higher price!

Mike Walter asks, "Should the instrument sound like new?"  I believe
the answer is 'yes', and to that end, of course, one should replace
rubber cloth, leather, etc. (but _not_ replace it with plastic, PVC
tubing etc!), as close as possible to the original in quality, style,
colour, and use glues that are compatible with the originals (hot glue,
etc., _not_ PVA!).  As has been remarked, these materials deteriorate,
and the term 'preservation' in this instance must include preservation
of the musical performance.

And yes, we do re-plate parts (with nickel or whatever, _not_ with
chrome) which were originally plated (but not those parts that weren't)
and we do re-polish and lacquer where that finish was originally
applied (if for no other reason than that it helps preserve the metal
underneath).

We do re-polish the cabinets of pianos where the finish is unacceptable
(our opinion!), but we don't re-veneer a mahogany piano with walnut, or
apply an 'Art Finish' or marquetry, etc., to make it 'rarer' and more
saleable.  We attempt to restore to the original specification, not
beyond it.

Mike Walter also said, "To dovetail into what Jonathan was saying
before: If the finish of a Stradivarius violin is so important to its
tonal quality, wouldn't the same be said of any musical instrument?"

Maybe a slightly unfortunate example in this case, as the varnish and
finish of a Stradivarius is crucial to its tonal quality (my grandfather
was a violin restorer), and stripping and refinishing would ruin the
instrument, thereby reducing its value by several hundred thousand
pounds.  This could be an argument for _not_ refinishing!

I've gone on long enough!

David Evans