The documented Opus 5 chapter at First United Methodist Church
Martin Ott Opus 5 was a 1976 project for First United Methodist Church in Du Quoin, Illinois. The church already had a small unit organ in a front-side chamber. The new scheme retained most of its Swell pipework while placing an exposed Great at the left of the chancel and the Pedal along the right wall.
The builder index places Opus 5 in 1976. A single index year is a starting point rather than a complete construction history. At First United Methodist Church in Du Quoin, Illinois, an invoice, programme, or dated photograph could identify the event behind it. The index says nothing about where the organ stands now.
What survives about the room at First United Methodist Church: Opus 5
The institutional name places Opus 5 in a church at Du Quoin, Illinois. Congregational and choral work are plausible in such a building, but neither should be presented as documented use without a programme or parish account. Room size, later alterations, and present access also remain outside the surviving evidence.
Numbers before tonal claims: Opus 5
The short specification for Opus 5 begins with 17 stops and 22 ranks. Those counts distinguish player controls from sets of pipes rather than offering two names for the same thing. Ranks exceed stops by 5 in the Opus 5 summary. The excess may sit in compound stops or another part of the design, but the summary cannot locate it. An exact pipe count and tonal analysis must wait for the full stop list.
Whatever happened after the documented period, 17 stops | 22 ranks Electro-Pneumatic action is the historical baseline for Opus 5. A newer list from First United Methodist Church might match it, or it might show a rebuild, an addition, or a correction. Either result would need a date and a named source. Without that comparison, the old figures can describe the recorded project but not the organ's present technical state.
The mechanism described for First United Methodist Church: Opus 5
For Opus 5 at First United Methodist Church, the archived overview calls the action electro-pneumatic. That term describes electrical signalling working with pneumatic assistance, rather than a fully mechanical key linkage. No component list or dated condition report accompanies the entry, so later repairs and present responsiveness remain unknown.
How to read the surviving design evidence: Opus 5
A closer look at the project evidence brings the defining facts forward: it reused material from the earlier unit organ and the exposed Great was placed at the left. For the congregation, an organ might lead hymns, accompany voices, or appear in recital, yet the source names none of those duties unless noted above. The evidence describes design rather than regular musical practice. Service leaflets, recital programmes, and a complete stop list would answer different parts of that question. The listed 17-stop, 22-rank scale remains the numerical boundary for this reading.
What the source says after 1976: Opus 5
Casavant Frères supplied a new console in 1976. The completed organ had 17 stops, 22 ranks, and electro-pneumatic action. This was a hybrid reconstruction rather than a wholly new instrument: older Swell pipes, new exposed divisions, and a console from another builder were brought together in one chancel arrangement.
A source trail for the First United Methodist Church instrument: Opus 5
The image trail for Opus 5 breaks before a project-number match. Nothing in the extracted material securely identifies a photograph of the Du Quoin, Illinois instrument. A substitute organ image would confuse atmosphere with evidence, so any illustration must say plainly that it is not a documentary view. The page also contains 1 link carrying a different opus number; those files are excluded as documentary images of Opus 5.
The Opus 5 account has a clear documented past and an unverified present. A recent statement from First United Methodist Church, paired with a dated stop list, would establish whether the instrument remains in Du Quoin, Illinois and whether its specification has changed. The existing evidence cannot carry those claims by itself.