[CR]"way prettier than it was..."

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea)

To: GPVB1@cs.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "H.M. & S.S. Sachs" <sachs@erols.com>
Subject: [CR]"way prettier than it was..."
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:58:49 -0500

In what I hoped would be the last note on a particular firm, Greg Parker wrote, <snip> FWIW, I have the red LeJeune CdM that CyclArt restored that used to be Jamie Swan's; it's gorgeous, way prettier than it was when it was new.).

While I understand and share Greg's pleasure in owning a gorgeous bike, he does raise a point that deserves reconsideration occasionally, and seems relevant now:

Is "way prettier than it was when it was new" really the meaning of "restored?"

I'm thinking about getting my pre-war Paramount repainted this winter. I'm not a purist insisting on stove enamel or lots of coats of hand-rubbed lacquer. It will be done with modern paint, modern frame prep, and modern primer. Still, I want the bike to look as it did when new. I suspect I'll get the surface coat "flatted" just a bit so it has no more gloss or greater "depth" than it would have had.

It's not right or wrong so much as personal taste. Some want the bike to be as pretty as possible; others want it as "historically correct" as possible. As I said, I'm not a purist: For Beloved Spouse's l'Orphelin, a common French production frame with uncommonly nice tubing, I was not too proud to "dress" the lugs a bit. But we don't pretend that the subtle tri-color fade paint is historically correct... (That one was done by Les Lunas, in Imron).

Your mileage may vary.

harvey sachs
mcLean va.