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


Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:50:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: gholl@optonline.net
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
In-reply-to: <8C974EFE72C1DCD-42C-17F4@FWM-M43.sysops.aol.com>
To: loudeeter@aol.com
References: <200706041830.l54IUZSE023704@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Dear Lou and Don: I am somewhat baffled by both your posts dated 4 June. Although I agree with the general conclusion that the more complete a description of a bike that can be made the better, is there already a standardized system for such a description? If so, where is it to be found? If none exists, creating one would be a good idea. For example the Antiquorum (Watch) auction house has a pretty decent standardized system for watch description. Needless to say, when a bike cannot be examined forst-hand, good photos (not always easy to come by) are invaluable in determining condition. Another important issue raised is that of bike provenance. How can one reasonably determine whether a bike was in fact ridden in the Giro by Bartoli (or pick your own race and champ)? Finally, as regards bike values, a very old and outdated list can be found on the web, and I have seen someone email CR about the preparation of a new vintage bike price list but, have never heard whether it was completed. Such lists are critical in other areas of collecting, especially those giving photos and auction values. In fact, even Internet services exist giving fine art values arranged by artist, date of sale, etc. A service with these features would be very helpful to the vintage bike collector, especially the novice. George Hollenberg, MD Westport, CT, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: loudeeter@aol.com
Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


> This is meant to be a way of describing condition, not

\r?\n> necessarily value, al

\r?\n> though I can see a logical correlation from the top to bottom

\r?\n> ending in P (P

\r?\n> oor). REB isn't meant to be in the order of value. I think

\r?\n> this

\r?\n> is just a way of properly describing the item. In fact, an

\r?\n> excellent b

\r?\n> ike ridden by Eddy Merckx would likely be worth more than a NOS

\r?\n> team bike me

\r?\n> ant for him, but never ridden. Likewise, a NOS Bianchi from

\r?\n> 1951 might

\r?\n> be worth a bunch, but a very well worn Coppi ridden Bianchi in

\r?\n> F condition

\r?\n> might be worth a lot more than NOS. Even a rebuilt or

\r?\n> repainted

\r?\n> Coppi bike might be worth more than NOS. How many of us would

\r?\n> fault a

\r?\n> collector who found a Coppi ridden bike with many parts replaced

\r?\n> over the ye

\r?\n> ars, with proper provenance, who then rebuilt it with correct parts.

\r?\n> So, it depends.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> The point being that repainted or rebuilt isn't the same as original.

\r?\n> It is just that, a repaint or rebuild. Mike Schmidt throws a

\r?\n> curve at this when he mentions a NOS 1972 Montelatici that had ne

\r?\n> ver been painted. Then, when it is painted in 2000s, is it NEW

\r?\n> or NOS

\r?\n> or some other category. To me, it would be described precisely

\r?\n> as Mike

\r?\n> described it--NOS frame, originally unpainted, but painted anew

\r?\n> in the U.S.

\r?\n> in the 2000s. Agreement on terminology isn't always necessary

\r?\n> as long

\r?\n> as coompleteness of the description is made. Lou Deeter,

\r?\n> Orlando FL U

\r?\n> SA

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> -----Original Message-----

\r?\n> From: Donald Gillies

\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

\r?\n> Cc: LouDeeter@aol.com

\r?\n> Sent: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 2:30 pm

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Lou Deeter's post brings up a very interesting point. A restoration

\r?\n> according to Lou's post) is classified as "REB: Rebuilt/repainted".

\r?\n> f no modifications are made to the frame and the restoration is done

\r?\n> n the spirit of "as close to the original finish, minus blems", then

\r?\n> here does value now fall on Lou's list ??

\r?\n> > NIP: New in original packaging.

\r?\n> NOS: New, unused, old stock.

\r?\n> NEW: New, unused, recent production.

\r?\n> EX: Excellent, virtually unused or unblemished.

\r?\n> VG: Very Good, minor wear or blemishes.

\r?\n> G: Good, moderate wear or blemishes.

\r?\n> F: Fair, significant wear or blemishes.

\r?\n> P: Poor, incomplete, non-functional or very blemished.

\r?\n> REB: Rebuilt/repainted.

\r?\n> I think it depends on the bicycle brand and restorer. For a MASI

\r?\n> ainted by a MASI painter, my impression is that the value might be

\r?\n> omewhere between EX and NOS.

\r?\n> For other bikes (like a Raleigh) painted by a master painter, with

\r?\n> ood decals, value might be higher than NIP (perhaps this is wishful

\r?\n> hinking on my part...)

\r?\n> For other items, such as a Schwinn Paramount painted by repaints-

\r?\n> r-us,

\r?\n> aybe the value falls to somewhere between G, F, and P...

\r?\n> Interesting to contemplate.

\r?\n> - Don Gillies

\r?\n> an Diego, CA