Attitude to repairs

When restoring instruments, the urge is to work the instrument up as close to mint condition as ever possible. The question is: Is that right?

When generation by generation's fingers have worn pits in the buttons, handle, or whatever of an instrument, when numerous instrument makers put patches on worn through tubing, built up spare parts for some device lost in the fight of catching the right node at the right time -

Should someone restoring that instrument better leave the marks of many years of use, and continue in the same manner: Replace missing parts, repair signs of damage and demolition, and leave the worn plating and all the small scratches that an instrument's life gives as they are?

Is a restoring to mint condition the removal of historical evidence?

Everyone knows that a new instrument that can be played does not stay in mint condition for ever.

The famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, may give us a direction to consider. In describing his approach to designing, he said, "form follows function".

So, in this regard, it probably is correct to first consider what the horn is going to be used for. If the purpose is to make the horn playable, then repairing that which inhibits performance makes sense. If the purpose is to document the historical record, then doing as little as possible to it makes sense. If the purpose is to make it a show piece, then removing blemishes and traces of use makes sense.

Observers will probably rarely all agree on what should be done. So, the owner must decide.

What needs to be done remains a question to be answered by the future use.

I just had communication with a man who has a collectable horn. But his interest is in making it playable and doesn't feel he wants to invest what it would cost to fully restore the horn. So, I am happy to do repairs that would meet his goals of playability and affordable cost.

A similar perspective is when one is confronted with a horn that has some life still in it, but the cost of restoring it would exceed its value. So, rather than trash it, it seems to me that a playability standard has viability.

If you think about it, modern repairs to an instrument are also part of its history. The organologist wants to study the horn, the musician wants to play it. I think it comes down to the age of the instrument. For example, it would be a real shame to have a modern-day repair person bring a 17th-century sackbut back to playing condition before an organologist had a chance to study it. So much would be lost. We don't know enough about the construction and materials of pre-19th-c instruments yet. We do know a bit about factory-made horns (and they are relatively plentiful in museums at present) to feel comfortable about bringing them back to even mint condition. I recommend only letting people with experience work on them, though.

Interestingly, the Civil War horn once I played had been repaired. . . well you see it had to be because it lived much of its life as a lamp! Two of the valves are brass, but one is nickel colored. I don't know its history, but I assume that a valve at some point was lost, or damaged and considerable restoration was necessary to bring it back to life. The lamp holes are plugged, and it is playable again.

Does this take away from its historical value? I don't think so. It doesn’t take away from its historical sound. However, I wouldn't advocate pulling the guide screws and replacing them with nylon guides (as if that were even possible!)


The question of how much to restore or leave comes up in the discussion of any antique. Sometimes things are worth more in an untouched condition but, I like to make things look better than worry about the value. Most of the instruments I have are only worth a few hundred in the best condition.

I try to just straighten things out, replace missing or broken parts, add new corks if needed and polish it up. If I don't plan on playing it much, I will leave the original springs in. I don't feel that 120-year-old horns should look brand new.


I think it depends on the instrument in question and what you are going to use it for. If it is a museum piece or something that has been used by someone famous, you do yourself a disservice to do more than is needed to bring it into mechanical perfection of close to it. Cosmetics are part of the story of the horn, but no horn is worth anything if it does not play in my opinion.

Now if it is going to be used on a regular basis and has little of no collector value or historical significance, I say do what you want! On of my kicks right now is to take affordable student horns that are in good condition in terms of valves and slides and make them what I want. To experiment and play around. If though for example Maynard Fergusson gave me one of his old beat up Holton's I would chemical dip it and fix anything that needed fixing like worn out valves or broken water key or red rot leadpipe etc......but I would leave the cosmetics of it alone and any part I had to replace I would try to either use a similar or OEM part and I would try to distress the finish to match the rest of the trumpet etc..... On the other hand, that same Holton trumpet off eBay would get a complete re-do!!! I plan to pass all my trumpets on to my son or sons if more than one ends up playing trumpet. I only need one for what I do so most of what I am doing is for them. So, I look at it like I am building something for them that will be significant because I made it with them in mind and for a particular reason i.e. Jazz sound, classical, church music etc.....


The plain fact is, many instruments going on 100 years old have been worked on and possibly restored at least once during their lifetime. If anything, it shows that the instrument played well enough to want to keep it running. There are cream puffs out there but most of us can't afford them, so we often find ourselves working with cobbled up frankenhorns. There are common refits like reverse leadpipe (well, not reverse leadpipe of course, but the same arrangement of male and female parts) and finger rings on third valve crooks. When you think about it, it's a great way to tweak an older model that never had it and it doesn't offend me to see that someone took the trouble to do it 40 years ago. It's part of the history of the horn and if done carefully adds a lot, just like an extra water key. These were only left off to save money in the first place.

I'd certainly think twice about touching anything on a valuable, original instrument in good condition with no signs of major repairs, other than unsticking crooks etc. but on a beater, the sky’s the limit.