Hi folks! Michael Johnson wrote (of the human ear):

> 
> Fallible they might be Peter but they are capable, as indeed are the 
> eyes, of much greater subtlety!   We must be very careful to not extend 
> our own personal taste here, the fact that I choose to go down the 
> Flemish road does not make those instruments better or worse than your 
> friend Mr Kirckman!
> 

I agree entirely - BUT - what one person hears might not agree with what 
another hears!

And as to Mr Kirckman's sound, it was the first old harpsichord I heard 
working the way it ought - complete with real crow quills - and raven in 
the bass. Leslie Ward of Dolmetsch's who used to look after the Fenton 
House instruments used to get raven quill from the Tower of London. (Tom 
Goff tried to use his connections to get a monopoly of raven quills, but 
the National Trust succeeded in getting enough!) And since I never liked 
painted harpsichords much, the veneered Kirckman was right up my alley - 
and still is, apart from the awful framing.

As I see it, the object of the exercise is not to achieve a particularly 
beautiful sound, but rather to come up with the EXACT sound that would 
have been heard in the eighteenth century, for good or ill. If we're not 
trying to accomplish this, there doesn't seem to be much point in the 
whole pursuit!
> 
> M, who tries to make Flemish harpsichords:-)
> 
(Sigh!) Flemish ones are all right I suppose . . .

Best!

Peter Redstone
Harpsichord and Spinet maker
http://www/redstoneharpsichords.com