From gabru@comsec.net Mon Mar 05 23:37:02 2012
Subject:RE: Mojo

Hi Dean,

Yeah I had problems with the keyboards, the faders and intermittent, you name it. I worked on a lot of them
including the ones I used and they weren't especially well built but I did see some pretty beat up ones that still worked.
I know the current Cromer is just a reuse of the name and I do think they had a better name in Europe. Around here the
Orchestrator was just considered a cheap way to get a string sound and there were used ones everywhere. But I sure
had fun using them at the time and they have their place in synth history!

Cheers,

Gary

From: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of deansurkin
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 2:54 PM
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CWSG] Mojo

Gary:

My experience with the old Crumar company was completely different. I had Orchestrator serial number 50. The keyboard became uneven after a month of gigging, and they replaced all the springs and had the instrument returned to me within one week. Their local tech company (then located in Long Island) listened to my comments about the bass pedals, and added switches for pluck, sustain, and octave shift.

Regarding BGMI, the company now using the name Crumar: there is no relationship between the two companies, and those of us in the U.S. probably see no reason to buy up the name of a defunct company. I guess that Crumar had a better reputation in Europe than it did here, and that the owners of BGMI see some value to it.

--Dean L. Surkin

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, Gary Brumm > wrote:
>
> It is the history of the Crumar name to be unresponsive I guess just like the old company was......
>
[snip]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]