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

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2007)

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:28:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: <gholl@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
In-reply-to: <321271.67605.qm@web82204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
References: <e7feef7212690.4662ffaa@optonline.net>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Original means pristine. If the object has been altered after manufacture, for whatever reason, it is not original whether or not the restoration is difficult to detect. The less said the better about any manufacturers' shoddy business practices. George Hollenberg MD Westport, CT, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerome & Elizabeth Moos"
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:14:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: gholl@optonline.net, "Donald Gillies"
Cc: "Classic Rendezvous"


> 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
> > Brian Baylis discovers an unpainted MASI from 1974, a time
> > period when
> > he was working at MASI. Brian decides to paint the bike for
> the first
> > time, using original decals from his "private reserve" (please don't
> > bug Brian about his "private reserve" as this is a thought
> experiment> and I've never heard him talk about a "private
> reserve".)
> > Anyway, is
> > this finally-painted frameset a restoration ??
> >
> > If it _is_ a restoration, then you have to tell me how much
> time must
> > elapse between when the bike is brazed and when it is painted. Are
> > you saying that frames go "stale" after a certain number of days,
> > weeks, or months, so they are not "fresh" any more, and "if they
> > aren't painted while fresh then are restorations" ?? That
> > sounds like
> > bunk to me.
> >
> > If is _is not_ a restoration, then what really is the difference
> > between a frame that brian finds unpainted, and a frame that is
> > chemically stripped of the paint that Brian put onto it in
> 1974 ??
> >
> > I imagine that the MASI guys screwed up some paint jobs, some
> of them
> > badly enough that they had to strip them and repaint them (either
> > immediately, in the shop, or after just a few months of customer
> > usage, maybe pinhole rust came through the paint in Seattle). Then
> > are these twice-painted frames "restorations" or "originals"
> ?? If
> > they are originals, what is the time period when the frame goes
> > "stale" (again, this sounds like bunk to me), If they are
> > "restorations", who's to say, even if they are first owners,
> > whether a
> > frameset has been once-painted or twice-painted ?? Again, this
> sounds> like bunk to me. In theory, any and every person could
> be
> > riding a
> > restoration, as a restoration would be identical to an original.
> >
> > Or are you saying that Brian has be on Faliero's payroll for
> the paint
> > to be original ?? Oh, now you're really getting ridiculous, aren't
> > you ??
> >
> > I believe that a frame (a) made by the artisan, (b) painted by the
> > artisan, and (c) built to the artisan's original specifications
> > (period, geometry, tubing, etc.), is an original, period. I think
> > that stance respects the art of the frame builder more than
> any other
> > stance.
> >
> > - Don Gillies
> > San Diego, CA
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
> George Hollenberg MD
> CT, USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

George Hollenberg MD
CT, USA