when i did my first of two restorations, the motivation came
due to the fact that most of the original parts were replaced
and the paint was in bad shape. furthermore, upon stripping the
paint chemically, i "learned" that these masis were never
sandblasted; thet were primed and painted right over the
steel. as such, i was able to see all ALL the file marks and
heavy brazing and brazing gaps and brass inclusions from
overheating, etcetera. this experience taught me more about
masi quality than all the trumped up articles and brochures
and listspeak could ever do; these were production level
frames, metalwork-wise. for the experience i gained from
observing them in this state of "undress", i love them even
more than if i were reading this written by someone else today..
the first frame sat here sans paint for at least a year before
i coughed it up for its next phase of restoration. btw, this
all was about 10 years ago, before ebay and CR and bicycle
classics and all the current resources that folks have.
for me, the restoration was an academic pursuit.
e-RICHIE
chester, ct
I don't much understand the point of restoring for restoring's sake, unless as was mentioned, that a frame would remain dysfunctional without doing the repairs. If some additional creativity is imparted into the restoration, so that you have brought it back to something better than new, added your personality to make the bike your own beyond just the possession thing, that speaks more to me as a contribution to cycling (your's and in general) than does simply making the tool shiny again. As to what I mean by adding your own creativity in a beneficial way, that is the challenge to discover. Are Richard's Masis just copies of the originals? I could be wrong, but I suspect that he considers the thought and work that went into them, at least in part as a manifestation of his own artistry, not like they were just pushed through the 'make em new again' machine.
Dennis Young
Hotaka, Japan