Wasn't it the late, great Dave Tesch who used to rant about bicyclists' obsession with a bike's finish, ignoring what is really important, the quality of the design and assembly? I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but unless patina was caused by Eddy's or Fausto's sweat, tired looking bikes should be repainted anytime the owner feels like it. What's most important is what's under the paint.
Yeah, that old bike might be worth more with the orignal chipped, flaking and rust encrusted finish on it, but I don't know anyone on this list who's getting rich buying and reselling old bikes. Certainly I show a net loss on this hobby, and I suspect that's the way it is for most of us, with the exception of a few sharp amateur operators who can break even, and a few pros who probably make a very modest profit. So maximizing the bike's cash value is a minor concern for me. If I feel a need to freshen up a bike's appearance, an original finish won't hold me back.
Of course I'm talking about a substantially trashed finish, with decals gone or illegible, rust peeking out here and there and more chips than my grandma's cookies. Some honorable battle scars on a grizzled veteran are admirable. But if it starts looking like it rolled around in a cement mixer with a few bricks, time to respray.
Historical value of an original finish? I'd rather see the bike as it rolled out of the factory after a careful restoration if I'm going to evaluate it's historical importance. Why else do museums spend lots of dough restoring old artwork to it's original appearance? That's how it was meant to look. Under what conditions would Ernesto, Cino, or Sante want us to evaluate their masterworks? With a nice quality respray, or looking like something fished out of a dumpster?
It seems to me that the premium value attached to the original finish is based on a collector's mentality, whereas I prefer to consider bikes as tools. So I don't see much of a relationship between the "value" of the bike and it's original paint. Bikes were painted to keep em from rusting, and secondarily as a marketing tool. If the paint coat isn't doing it's job anymore, fire up the spray guns! Don't like the color? Spritz spritz! Need to color coordinate your old bike with your new helmet? Sounds good to me! Pretty paint is better than ugly paint. And of course, if you feel competely the opposite of me, excellent! You can buy me a beer in Greensboro and try to convert me from my sinful ways.
Tom (paintin' fool) Adams, Shrewsbury NJ
PS: Who wants to repaint my Follis?
John Barry <usazorro@yahoo.com> wrote: Emanuel,
I understand your perspective quite clearly, but with some regularity, perfectly nice vintage frames are found in un-original paint. Consider the Raleigh Professional that I found (with a little help from some friends):
I felt absolutely no qualms about sending this out for paint. I also feel no qualms about taking some liberties in how it is getting repainted.
This bike, on the other hand, despite 50+ years removal from it's original glory, is not on my repainting schedule:
Hopefully, I'll be able to bring both of these with me to le Cirque.
No doubt there are some people who just prefer their bike to look brand new, and while I wouldn't consider that a cause to get it painted, who's to say they are "wrong" or "misguided"? It would be a dull world indeed if we all held the same opinions. :)
Cheers,
John Barry
Mechanicsburg, PA, USA
> The bicycle restoration business must be an awfully
> fussy
> world. I bet that a good portion of the US painters
> are
> dealing with concours-level restoration work and
> must
> factor in to their prices the cost of dealing with
> ultra-finicky emotion-laden frame jobs and their
> similar
> owners.
>
> In the UK, I may assume that more is the utilitarian
> re-spray -- fine work indeed, perhaps not catered to
> a
> trophy-wielding judge, though.
>
> I come from the world of rare cameras, where
> restoration is
> a no-no, except in the most extreme of extreme
> cases. A
> rare camera would not be repainted, lest it lose
> most of
> its appeal as a collectile. Functional repair is
> usually
> acceptable, if with period-correct parts.
>
> I'm a little surprised by the willingness to repaint
> bikes,
> given that -- other than the builder's brazing craft
> and
> geometric details -- the painted/chromed finish is
> what
> typically distinguished one marque from the other.
> The
> original paint job seems to me to be intrinsic to
> what the
> bike is aesthetically and originally, even if
> compounded by
> Time's patina.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Emanuel Lowi
> Montreal, Quebec
>
>
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers
> from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share
> what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/
--------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/