Re: [CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

From: "Charles Andrews" <>
To: "gabriel l romeu" <>, "Thomas Adams" <>
References: <> <>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 07:46:24 -0700

I wasn't making a comment about quality. That is a largely subjective issue in the case of frame finishes (and most other things), although certain characteristics of a frame finish might be considered by consensus to be better or worse.

My point was that something that's not original is *different.* Whether that difference floats your boat higher or lower is a matter for your taste buds.

Charles "original tastes better" Andrews Los Angeles

----- Original Message -----
From: gabriel l romeu
To: Thomas Adams
Cc: Charles Andrews

<> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?

Being a craftsman, likes to support craftspeople, and agreeing wholeheartedly with with your assessment of the potential of quality enhancement which IS generally good for a functional object, I really appreciate your perspective on refinishing. And even better, co opting ideas and choices of the user in the

Add this to my appreciation of a good patina allows me to appreciate the 4 newly repainted frames Rita and I just got back from Mike Barry with just as much vigor of the ones that have obviously been and will be well used and loved...gabriel

got a off topic bike in the basement that allegedly was used by Hincapie that needs a new stem and steertube, could use some touch up hear and there, anyone have any ideas?

Thomas Adams wrote:
> Dear Charles & List:
> But might not the river be improved when you step in the second time?
> Philosophically, a refinish is also a unique point in time, and
> represents the owner communing more closely with the soul of his
> machine, making it more his or hers, making it "better". Certainly
> any of the reputable refinishers on the list will do a "better" job
> than just about any factory applied finish I've seen. After all, a
> bike is, at its heart, a tool, and tools that are given a "better"
> (more durable, more protective and prettier) finish coat are better
> tools. We buy bikes because of what we believe about the skill of
> the man or men who selected the materials, designed the geometry,
> mitered the tubes and brazed the joints: no one asks the name of the
> bloke who spritzed on the enamel. If we didn't care about that when
> we bought the frame, why suffer the indignity of an ugly bike to
> perpetuate what is the least important part of a bike? If
> collectors pay more for a ratty, chipped up original finish that's
> allowing the frame to rust away, well that merely illustrates how
> many poor misguided fellows there are in the world :-) Cher
> Charles, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> Tom "paint is a consumable" Adams, Shrewsbury NJ

gabriel l romeu
a final posting for the day in
chesterfield nj usa
± Ø ±