> "As in the case of the Welte, this also meant that only the wealthy
> could afford reproducing pianos, and that the market was always bound
> to be a limited one.  But rolls were made for much lower selling
> prices (a Duo-Art roll was high if it brought $4) in an attempt to
> capitalize on the possibilities of this part of the market."
>
> Can anyone provide me with an estimate of what these dollars may
> be worth in US terms today?

Funny you should ask about 1912.  The best data for this sort of thing
is from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose records go back to
1913.  However, we can estimate:

There is an inflation calculator at the Columbia Journalism Review
web site, http://www.cjr.org/tools/inflation/ that gives the ratio as
18:1.  Thus $100 worth of stuff in 1912 would cost $1818.18 in 2002
dollars.  (They don't have statistics for 2004 dollars.)

If this link doesn't work, go to cjr.org, click on 'journalism tools,'
and find the inflation calculator.  There are _many_ other sources for
this sort of information.  The economic theory gets rather sticky;
there are so many variables.

For example, the craftsmanship necessary to build a reproducing piano
is far rarer now, and that raises the value of the instrument.  But
current demand for such instruments by the general public is,
unfortunately, quite low, so this theoretically lowers their value.

For what it's worth, there is an ad in my 1908 Sears catalog
reproduction for a machine that makes concrete blocks.  The owner of
such a machine can be a prosperous concrete-block entrepreneur, says
the ad, given that the wages of the common laborers in his employ would
be only $2.00 per day.  I had thought that this figure was purposely
lowered, but it seems to correspond fairly well with today's minimum
wage.

Reproducer pianos were for the very rich.  My grandfather purchased
an Ampico when he was (very briefly) a millionaire in the 1920's.

Mark Kinsler