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


Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:26:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: gholl@optonline.net
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
In-reply-to: <1002736567-1181218182-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-980991034-@bxe116.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
To: mdschmidt@patmedia.net
References: <20070606.225552.20443.3337980@webmail10.lax.untd.com> <e4e9ebb0f8a.4667f1c6@optonline.net>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

It certainly shouldn't be on the shoulders of one person. You should
   contribute as well. I think many people that have knowledge should ge t involved here. I can't think of a single collecting area without a t least some detailed reference text, or website, etc. George Hollenberg, MD Westport, CT, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: mdschmidt@patmedia.net
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: gholl@optonline.net, classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.


org, "brianbaylis@juno.com"

Cc: Classic Rendezvous


> Why just lay this on the shoulders of one person? Set a task
> force, publish and sell the results. Donate the profits to
> Operation Smile and the cost of operating future Cirque.
>
> Mikey Schmidt
> BattleGround Inn
> 4th Floor
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gholl@optonline.net
>
> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:53:42
> To:"brianbaylis@juno.com"
> Cc:Classic Rendezvous
> Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
>
>
> Brian:
> It's true that bike collecting is not analogous to collecting
> fine art
> . But, I think it's an important and interesting hobby-and I t hin
> k you, and a lot of other people, do too.
>
> As time goes by, and the older generation leaves the scene, it' s g
> oing to get harder to preserve the information needed to
> identify and re
> store bikes. It's also important to know what value collectors
> put o
> n them-after all they've studied them and put up their hard
> earned mon
> ey to collect them.
> Now, I think someone like you should be heavily involved in such
> a pro
> ject (puttting together a guide to vintage steel bikes).
> Wouldn't it
> be a shame if your knowledge were lost?
> Cordially,
>
> George Hollenberg MD
> Westport, CT, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brianbaylis@juno.com"
>
> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2007 2:00 am
> Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
> To: loudeeter@aol.com
> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
> >
>
> > Lou, George, and all,
> >
>
> > I first have to admit that I haven't read any but these last
> few
>
> > posts
>
> >
>
> > on this topic (but I have heard about it); but getting carried


>
> > away
>
> >
>
> > with price guides and such for bikes is probably a waste of
>
> > time. Why
>
> >
>
> > spend a tremendous amount of time making something that is
>
> > casual and
>
> >
>
> > fun into something complicated. Bikes are worth what people
> are
>
> >
>
> > willing to pay for them. That varies. Get over it.
> >
>
> > If you don't know enough about the stuff to decide what it's


>
> > worth,
>
> >
>
> > that's a pretty good sign you should not buy it. If you are a
>
> > novice,
>
> >
>
> > stick around and make friends, talk to people, and learn who


> to
>
> > ask if
>
> >
>
> > you have questions.
> >
>
> > Honestly, I don't think there are enough bikes and people in the
>
>
> > hobby
>
> >
>
> > to make such a thing worth while; at least not for for
>
> > everything.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe if someone wants to get the basics of what some of the
>
> > most rare
>
> >
>
> > and desirable bikes are generally worth, go ahead. Everythin g
>
> > else
>
> >
>
> > will be worth much less than those things. That's close enou gh.
>
>
> > Bike
>
> >
>
> > collecting will never be as sophisticated as collecting art,
>
> >
>
> > automobiles, or watches. Simple fact.
> >
>
> > Just my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to give me a
> wedgie
>
> > at the
>
> >
>
> > Cirque. Be ready for a hard punch to the kneecap from the
> dwarf
>
> > if you
>
> >
>
> > do, though.
> >
>
> > Brian Baylis
> > La Mesa, CA
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -- loudeeter@aol.com wrote:
> > George, I'm baffled that you are baffled. First, ther e i
> s no singl
> > e
>
> >
>
> > un
> > iversally accepted grading standard for used bicycles. I
>
> > posted on
> > e
> >  standard that Jim Cunningham suggested to me, but again ,
> it's
> > not
> > universally accepted. Second, there is no annually publis hed
>
>
> >
>
> > pricing
>
> >
>
> > list by condition for bicycles like you see for coins or
> guns.Â
>
>
> > I
>
> >
>
> > have
>
> >
>
> > a "Blue Book of Bicycle Values that was published about five
>
> > years
>
> >
>
> > ago, but
>
> >
>
> > it is woefully inadequate. The price list that Mike K one
>
> > (an
> > d Sheldon?) prepared that you see on Sheldon's website is
> a go
> > od s
> > tart, but again, it touched the surface for makes and didn' t
>
> > address
>
> >
>
> > the ful
> > l range of condition. No criticism of the effort, just no t
>
> > what yo
> > u
>
> >
>
> > ar
> > e suggesting/asking. Third, provenance is a topic that Br ett
> Horto
> > n
>
> >
>
> > co
> > vered very well at a Cirque a few years ago (2003?) that may
>
> > still be
>
> >
>
> > availa
> > ble on DVD from listmember Ken Toda (huemax@aol.com) or you
> can
>
> > just
>
> >
>
> > ask Bre
> > tt at Cirque to tudor you on provenance. Would it be nice t o
>
> > have
>
> > a
>
> >
>
> > un
> > iversally accepted standard for grading and an up-to-date
>
> > accessible
>
> >
>
> > pricing
> > guide? Sure it would. Is that going to happen anytime so
> on?
> > Â
> > I think not. Heck, we can't even get universally accept e
> d defi
> > niti
> > ons for "original"! Lou Deeter, Orlando FL USA
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gholl@optonline.net
> > To: loudeeter@aol.com
> > Cc: Classic Rendezvous
>
> > Sent: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 4:50 pm
> > Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration ?
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dear Lou and Don:
> > am somewhat baffled by both your posts dated 4 June. Although
> I
>
> > agree
>
> >
>
> > with
>
> >
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > eneral conclusion that the more complete a description of a
> bike
>
> > that
>
> >
>
> > can be
> >
>
> >
>
> > ade the better, is there already a standardized system for
> such
>
> > a
>
> >
>
> > descriptio
> > n?
>
> >
>
> > f so, where is it to be found? If none exists, creating on e
>
> > would be a
>
> >
>
> > good
>
> >
>
> > dea. For example the Antiquorum (Watch) auction house has a
>
> > pretty
>
> >
>
> > decent
>
> >
>
> > tandardized system for watch description.
> > eedless to say, when a bike cannot be examined forst-hand,
> good
>
> > photos
>
> >
>
> > (not
>
> >
>
> > lways easy to come by) are invaluable in determining condition.
> > nother important issue raised is that of bike provenance. How
>
> > can one
>
> >
>
> > easonably determine whether a bike was in fact ridden in the
>
> > Giro by
>
> >
>
> > Bartoli
> >
>
> >
>
> > or pick your own race and champ)?
> > inally, as regards bike values, a very old and outdated list can
>
>
> > be
>
> >
>
> > found on
> >
>
> >
>
> > he web, and I have seen someone email CR about the preparation


>
> > of a
>
> >
>
> > new vint
> > age
>
> >
>
> > ike price list but, have never heard whether it was completed.


>
> > Such
>
> >
>
> > lists ar
> > e
>
> >
>
> > ritical in other areas of collecting, especially those giving
>
> > photos
>
> >
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> > uction values. In fact, even Internet services exist giving fine
>
>
> > art
>
> >
>
> > values
>
> >
>
> > rranged by artist, date of sale, etc. A service with these


>
> > features
>
> >
>
> > would b
> > e
>
> >
>
> > ery helpful to the vintage bike collector, especially the novi ce.
>
> > eorge Hollenberg, MD
> > estport, CT, USA
> >
>
> >
>
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > rom: loudeeter@aol.com
> > ate: Monday, June 4, 2007 2:47 pm
> > ubject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
> > o: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > > This is meant to be a way of describing condition, not
>
> >
>
> > necessarily value, al
> > though I can see a logical correlation from the top to bottom
>
> >
>
> > ending in P (P
> > oor). REB isn't meant to be in the order of value. I think


>
> >
>
> > this
>
> >
>
> > is just a way of properly describing the item. In fact, an
>
> >
>
> > excellent b
> > ike ridden by Eddy Merckx would likely be worth more than a
> NOS
>
> >
>
> > team bike me
> > ant for him, but never ridden. Likewise, a NOS Bianchi fro m
>
> >
>
> > 1951 might
> > be worth a bunch, but a very well worn Coppi ridden Bianchi in


>
> >
>
> > F condition
> > might be worth a lot more than NOS. Even a rebuilt or
>
> >
>
> > repainted
>
> >
>
> > Coppi bike might be worth more than NOS. How many of us would
>
> >
>
> > fault a
>
> >
>
> > collector who found a Coppi ridden bike with many parts
>
> > replaced
>
> >
>
> > over the ye
> > ars, with proper provenance, who then rebuilt it with correc t
>
> > parts.
>
> >
>
> > So, it depends.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The point being that repainted or rebuilt isn't the same as or igin
> al.
> > It is just that, a repaint or rebuild. Mike Schmidt throws a
> > curve at this when he mentions a NOS 1972 Montelatici that had n e
> > ver been painted. Then, when it is painted in 2000s, is it
   NEW
>
>
> >
>
> > or NOS
>
> >
>
> > or some other category. To me, it would be described precise ly
>
> >
>
> > as Mike
> > described it--NOS frame, originally unpainted, but painted
> anew
>
> >
>
> > in the U.S.
> > in the 2000s. Agreement on terminology isn't always necessar y
>
> >
>
> > as long
> > as coompleteness of the description is made. Lou Deeter,
>
> >
>
> > Orlando FL U
> > SA
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donald Gillies
>
> >
>
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Cc: LouDeeter@aol.com
> > Sent: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 2:30 pm
> > Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration ?
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Lou Deeter's post brings up a very interesting point. A rest orat
> ion
> > according to Lou's post) is classified as "REB: Rebuilt/re pain
> ted".
> > f no modifications are made to the frame and the restoration
> is done
>
> > n the spirit of "as close to the original finish, minus blem s"
> , then
> > here does value now fall on Lou's list ??
> > > NIP: New in original packaging.
> > NOS: New, unused, old stock.
> > NEW: New, unused, recent production.
> > EX: Excellent, virtually unused or unblemished.
> > VG: Very Good, minor wear or blemishes.
> > G: Good, moderate wear or blemishes.
> > F: Fair, significant wear or blemishes.
> > P: Poor, incomplete, non-functional or very blemished.
> > REB: Rebuilt/repainted.
> > I think it depends on the bicycle brand and restorer. For a MA SI
> > ainted by a MASI painter, my impression is that the value
> might be
>
> > omewhere between EX and NOS.
> > For other bikes (like a Raleigh) painted by a master painter, with
>
> > ood decals, value might be higher than NIP (perhaps this is wi shfu
> l
> > hinking on my part...)
> > For other items, such as a Schwinn Paramount painted by
>
> > repaints-
> > r-us,
> > aybe the value falls to somewhere between G, F, and P...
> > Interesting to contemplate.
> > - Don Gillies
> > an Diego, CA