> One thing many discussions of restorations miss is that often it is
> impossible (or close to) to recreate the original finish.
>
> To me, a black 1947 Alex Singer or Rene Herse that originally was
> dipped in hot paint (yes, you read this correctly) just doesn't look
> right with a shiny "wet-look,"
Well of course! Most British bikes painted black were dipped and not spray-painted. I've gotten far more prototypical results on my roadsters by brush painting than spraying. Take a good auto enamel, reduce the heck out of it with slow drying reducer, take a foam brush (yes!) and apply 6-8 coats of very thin enamel. Lightly sand between coats. Takes a long time (a week or more) but the results are brilliant. I, too, avoid the look of obvious "restorations".. that godawful liquid gloss and rechroming.
But yes... if I owned one of these classics from new, I'd keep her in near showroom condition. So that's what I want in my classics, sorry. Heck I sold my '62 Raleigh Sports in 1972 when I was 14.. she was so immaculate my local shop gave me $25 for her; unheard of sum in those days.
So, it's always a toss-up for me... mint or prototypical. How do I know when I've achieved a harmonious balance between the two? When I take her out and say... "she looks bloody marvelous!". No judge or jury or even CR List is going to make me feel any better than that. There's has to be an nice in between between what the British call an "going over with an oily rag" and a full scale repaint and rechroming. But heck, the CycleArt restoration of my Cinelli (done before I owned her) is definately in the "she looks bloody marvelous!" category.
Peter Kohler
Washington DC USA