> S.K. Goodman writes:
>
> No No,  a thousand times no!  I had this on both my KT and KT
> Special- you DON'T want to "modify" this "archaic and dangerous "
> switch as that would destroy the authenticity and originality.

After some 25+ years in this avocation, I have come to appreciate and
respect the views of both sides of the "authentic" debate.    I do not
disagree with the principle of what Mr. Goodman supports, and in fact
much of my restorations also support the his views.

Consider for a moment if the Seeburg company was still in business
today and still making a KT or its contemporary equivalent.    In all
probability, its innards will reflect contemporary electrical and other
official requirements.    Normal evolution would have put in place the
very thing we are discussing.

Consider also that a typical "museum" restoration is not a restoration
at all.    From the viewpoint of their quest for authenticity, the very
most that would ordinarily be done is a good clean-up for static
display.    However, this unique slice of musical heritage we all
admire, cherish and enjoy was never intended for a static display to
appeal only to the sense of sight.

Music is primarily intended to appeal to the sense of hearing in
addition to the sense of sight.   To do nothing more than a cleanup to
appeal to the sense of sight alone, only goes halfway towards
satisfying the concept of authenticity to original purpose.   The
antiques we love so much are not static, they are functional and to be
functional, they should do so in a manner as to 'functionally'
replicate their original intention, if not their original form.

So what we have here is a tug-o-war or balancing act, where the
opposing forces of museum authenticity vs functional authenticity are
at work here.    I support striking the balance in favour of functional
authenticity where I will try to preserve the visual portion as closely
as possible, and improve upon the hidden portions where possible and
practical.    It's a constant judgement call.

I have no problem at all supporting modifications that will make an
instrument safer and likely protect it into perpetuity.    I welcome
the current debate about the electrical support systems in our
instruments.   Quite frankly, I'm astonished it has taken so long for
this particular concern to surface.

Over the years, I'm personally aware of several such instances where an
instrument could easily have been destroyed, along with the home in
which it resides.    One such incident actually occured during the
Sunday Open House following one of AMICA's Conventions.    I cannot now
remember which one or which house, but a house full of visitors
suddenly smelled something burning, and quickly spotted smoke emerging
from the underside of a Duo-Art reproducing grand playing its heart
out.   Someone smartly pulled the plug out of the wall, likely minutes
before raw flames might have erupted.

So, while we are on the topic of making modifications, has anyone
thought about installing an overheat sensor nearby the electric motor
of an instrument, such that the circuit will be killed upon an overheat
condition?     This is another modification that I would fully
support.

Thoughts of others?

Regards,

Terry

•Terry Smythe                    (204) 832-3982 (voice/fax)
55 Rowand Avenue                smythe@mts.net
Winnipeg, MB, Canada   R3J 2n6  smythe@freenet.mb.ca
Home page: http://www.mts.net/~smythe