Let's not get into any kind of bashing of Ken's drawings. He is a 
gentleman and an outstanding draughtsman and engineer who firsthand saw 
the whole picture back to the beginnings. He made every attempt to show 
what was really present in some important american held antiques. His 
drawing of the 1765 Blanchet shows how far builders went to impersonate 
earlier makers so they could profit.
   Why anyone would use either Perticis drawing to build an instrument 
is beyond me but thats why I own the drawings. I wouldn't build the 1640 
Ruckers at Yale because its now an english rebuilt BUT from this drawing 
we got at least a glimpse of what real Ruckers work was.
I have almost no sympathy for the folks who think that owning or 
building an italian pentagonal spinet will produce a harpsichord. Those 
instruments were from another time an place than most literature (even 
virginal music) If you have no money, and want to learn to play, start 
like I did with a box with keys that go up and down (sometimes a lot 
better than a piece of furniture) Most everything Bill says is true and 
He's not stretching things. Out hear in Seattle I get to see old Hubbard 
kits that owners think are Dowds and kits that owners think are flemish 
harpsichords and lots of outright fakery but what's new. If people want 
to know I tell them.
                                           Thanks to Bill there's 
something to read for a change  JP