RE: [CR]State of the Art restorations


Example: Books:Ron Kitching

From: "kohl57@starpower.net" <kohl57@starpower.net>
To: heine93@earthlink.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: RE: [CR]State of the Art restorations
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:34:27 -0400


Jan's criteriums for restoration are, I think, spot-on and well-stated.

The only aspect that's poses a potential problem for those of us who like to stay "in period" is dealing with what was the normal routine for top-end machines of the 1950s-1960s, at least in the UK. You bought the frame and added your choice of components. Fine so far.. you'd wind up wanting to save what hopefully is a nice selection of choice bits of the period. But often the process didn't stop there. Very often you see lovely late 40s and early 50s frames with components from every era imaginable. Original owner, receipts etc. But a machine full of character that winds up reflecting an era when blokes kept a treasured mount forever and upgraded it. Such machines are "period correct" I guess being original to what their owner preferred etc, but they are an important grey area in all this. I'd be sorely tempted to "restore" back to period components to match the frame and I think that might be considered bad form among some preservationists.

Fortunately, except for my RRA, all of my collection is comprised of production line stuff, ground out like sausages and complete with what God and the line manager deemed good enough for mere mortals at the time. The specs varied a bit of course but it's easier to find out what SHOULD have been on what model. It's a great feeling stripping off mod-cons and ersatz bits on a classic bike and watch it morph back to the brochure pix. But how many of us can bear to put back or save those 'orrible USDOT reflectors? Not me... that's going too far!

Peter Kohler Washington DC USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .