And how about this: "Although its sound quality differed in some respects from that of a pipe organ (the chief difference is that its overtone series is not the natural one), the Hammond organ was purchased by some 1750 churches in the first three years of its manufacture (a third of all sales). From 1936 until 1938 the company fought a legal battle with the Federal Trade Commission for the right to call the instrument an organ; somewhat exaggerated claims made in early publicity were also involved. Although the case was decided against the company, the Hammond firm was allowed to continue to call its instrument an 'organ' and soon afterwards a blind test was held in Chicago in which experts failed to distinguish between a Hammond and a pipe organ in a third of the examples played to them." Does that test not prove only that the experts were not really expert?
I thought these comments from the broadcast rarities were interesting because I know of a church that is trying to raise over £400,000 to restore a Victorian organ. In the same church recently, I heard a digital Allen organ and the sound was very good. The thing is, it costs a tenth of the price. Considering all the organ will do for most of the time is accompany hymns for a small congregation, is it worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the genuine article?