[CR]RE: Updates

Example: Bike Shops

From: "sam Lingo" <samclingo@hotmail.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:37:34 +0000
Subject: [CR]RE: Updates

Thinks Hugh for that insite.I was going to ask what you gave me the answer to but didn't know how to word it correctly.It's easy to say this part in not correct on this bike because it came out a year after the frame was built,but how do you ask if a part is correct for a Hotrod bike!Some how it's just a feeling you get that says it "looks" right.

sam(still pumped up over seeing List members Mark Manson's classic Hotrod bikes) lingo Pleasanton Tx

>From: Hughethornton@aol.com
>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: Updates - was [CR]Record calipers are Record calipers
>Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:29:19 EDT
>It is always a bit difficult to know what to do after acquiring an old
>bicycle that has been updated during its life - whether to refit it with "period
>correct" components or leave it as it is.
>My general rule is to keep it the way it is, if it has been updated by the
>original owner to keep it competitive or "up-to-date", and to get it back to
>something like its original state if it has been messed around and fitted with
>cheap components just to keep it running as a hack.
>A case in point is a 1938 A J Hodge road/track bike that was virtually a
>one-owner bike when I bought it a few years ago. Most of the components are about
>1960 vintage and I decided to keep it that way because they match the bike in
>quality and are legitimate updates/replacements. It is not "period correct",
>but it is a historically accurate record of a man and his bike.
>I recently acquired an early 50s Frejus which is such a mess of mis-matching
>bits that I intend to rebuild it with correct, or at least period-correct,
>parts so that I end up with a bike that is aesthetically pleasing and, hopefully,
>fun to ride.
>An exception is a 1955 Gillott that I acquired from the widow of the original
>owner. It had been repainted a not very nice orange, which was dull and
>chipped, and fitted with a 1973 Nuovo Record groupset. It was great to ride but
>looked boring and somehow "wrong", so I have just had the frame repainted in
>its original rose pink colour and am rebuilding it with Campagnolo Gran
>Sport/Stronglight/Mafac like a typical mid-fifties British bike and, as far as I can
>gather, close to the original spec.
>I guess we all have to make our own compromise between the preservation of
>bicycles and cycling history and getting the most enjoyment for our money.
>Hugh Thornton
>Cheshire, England
>In a message dated 21/06/04 22:56:12 GMT Daylight Time,
>jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net writes:
> > We sometimes forget that "in the day" guys changed out parts a lot to get
> > "cooler" stuff, especially since most of us couldn't afford the number of
> > complete bikes we have now. I changed out the Simplex derailleurs on my
> > UO-8 for Shimano Titlist, the Mafac Racer brakes on my LeJeune F-70 for
> > original Dura-Ace SP's (using a Campy drop bolt), and most the original
> > Campy NR parts on my Windsor Pro for Avocet and Shimano stuff including a DA
> > AX RD. The latter two have been restored to closer to original, but the
> > UO-8 I sold. Point is that to be authentic, a bike need not be original,
> > since so many had pieces changed soon after purchase. That's why I'm more
> > concerned about period correct than about original.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos
> > Houston, TX