Just to be contrarian, I tend to feel that the paint is the least important element of what makes a bike "interesting". Paint is only eye candy and has no impact on the important part, how the bike rides. Bikes for the CR list are collected because of how well the framemaker did his work, not how well the painter spritzed on the laquer. Granted if you do have a "significant" bike like the Playboy Wiegle or a Fausto Bianchi, then there's a lot to say for preserving the original finish. And I suppose there's a good argument for keeping a factory model of bike it's original color, even if you repaint it. If you wanna change your Raleigh Pro from mink blue to candy apple suit yourself, but I wouldn't. But given how bad many factory paint jobs are, I don't blame an owner for wanting a "good" finish on a favorite bike. But limited by those two caveats, bikes are a blank canvas for the owner to adorn as he sees fit, and any frame built by a small artisan is fair game for personal expression by the owner. Was it Dave Tesch who was always annoyed because people overlooked the quality of the frame build to obsess over the paint?
When I got started riding, there were several members in my club who repainted their steeds frequently "just to try something new" or "because they got tired of the color". I like that attitude because those bikes will be ridden hard, whereas a bike you consider a museum piece won't get much asphalt time.
Fortunately we are a diverse group, and there's lots of room for different opinions.
Tom Adams, Shrewsbury NJ
>From: "P.C. Kohler" <kohl57@starpower.net>
>To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>,"Jan Heine" <heine93@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [CR]Restorations
>Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:54:31 -0500
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jan Heine" <heine93@earthlink.net>
>To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [CR]Restorations
>
>
> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classicrendezvous mailing list
>Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/