Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?


Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: gholl@optonline.net, Donald Gillies <gillies@cs.ubc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <e7feef7212690.4662ffaa@optonline.net>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

I have to disagree. If a new product is defective, but is repaired before the original sale, it is original, or at least it will usually be impossible to prove it is anything but.

There used to be a large GM assembly plant outside the town where I went to high school. Many of my classmates got jobs there. In those days, American auto quality control was pretty poor, and many vehicles were completed on the "repair lot" after a final inspection revealed a correctible defect. These vehicles were sold as new, and neither the first buyer or any subsequent owner would have any way of knowing of the repairs, and therefore could never regard them as anything other than "original".

Not that any of these vehicles are likely to become collectible, except maybe for Chevy Vegas, which are sort of collectible in the same perverse way as Edsels and AMC Gremlins.

Regards,

Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX

gholl@optonline.net wrote:
    Dear Mr. Gillies: Restoration is a form of renewal. Original implies pristine. A bike painted years after its paint had been removed would not be original, it would also be considered restored. A bike whose paint is damaged during its production and immediately repainted is also restored (renewed) although, for semantic reasons we would routinely we might simply say "repainted." A bike never painted for whatever reason, and painted when that model bike is no longer in routine production, is also restored-i.e. renewed to the state the builder would have desired it ( assuming that model was routinely painted, not chromed, etc.). All this brings me back to the original point I made in a previous post-a properly done (this is the real key) bike restoration shouldn't be considered less noble than an "original." In many ways top quality restoration may be more difficult, and therefore more expensive than an "original" production! George Hollenberg MD Westport, CT, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Gillies
Date: Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:02 pm
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


> Let's use a thought experiment to illustrate my point. Let's say

\r?\n> Brian Baylis discovers an unpainted MASI from 1974, a time

\r?\n> period when

\r?\n> he was working at MASI. Brian decides to paint the bike for the first

\r?\n> time, using original decals from his "private reserve" (please don't

\r?\n> bug Brian about his "private reserve" as this is a thought experiment

\r?\n> and I've never heard him talk about a "private reserve".)

\r?\n> Anyway, is

\r?\n> this finally-painted frameset a restoration ??

\r?\n>

\r?\n> If it _is_ a restoration, then you have to tell me how much time must

\r?\n> elapse between when the bike is brazed and when it is painted. Are

\r?\n> you saying that frames go "stale" after a certain number of days,

\r?\n> weeks, or months, so they are not "fresh" any more, and "if they

\r?\n> aren't painted while fresh then are restorations" ?? That

\r?\n> sounds like

\r?\n> bunk to me.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> If is _is not_ a restoration, then what really is the difference

\r?\n> between a frame that brian finds unpainted, and a frame that is

\r?\n> chemically stripped of the paint that Brian put onto it in 1974 ??

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I imagine that the MASI guys screwed up some paint jobs, some of them

\r?\n> badly enough that they had to strip them and repaint them (either

\r?\n> immediately, in the shop, or after just a few months of customer

\r?\n> usage, maybe pinhole rust came through the paint in Seattle). Then

\r?\n> are these twice-painted frames "restorations" or "originals" ?? If

\r?\n> they are originals, what is the time period when the frame goes

\r?\n> "stale" (again, this sounds like bunk to me), If they are

\r?\n> "restorations", who's to say, even if they are first owners,

\r?\n> whether a

\r?\n> frameset has been once-painted or twice-painted ?? Again, this sounds

\r?\n> like bunk to me. In theory, any and every person could be

\r?\n> riding a

\r?\n> restoration, as a restoration would be identical to an original.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Or are you saying that Brian has be on Faliero's payroll for the paint

\r?\n> to be original ?? Oh, now you're really getting ridiculous, aren't

\r?\n> you ??

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I believe that a frame (a) made by the artisan, (b) painted by the

\r?\n> artisan, and (c) built to the artisan's original specifications

\r?\n> (period, geometry, tubing, etc.), is an original, period. I think

\r?\n> that stance respects the art of the frame builder more than any other

\r?\n> stance.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> - Don Gillies

\r?\n> San Diego, CA