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


Example: Production Builders:Tonard

Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 17:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Adams <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: when is a restoration not a restoration?
To: Charles Andrews <chasds@mindspring.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <005001c7a571$8ec3c2b0$6401a8c0@DELL>


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

Charles Andrews <chasds@mindspring.com> wrote: Jerry wrote:

So are these originals or restorations? If the same hands finish it a second time, is it then again "original"?

&&&&&&&

This is easy. The answer is *no.*

And I can cite no greater authority on this matter than Chuang Tsu, who disposed of this philosophical question quite nicely in the 4th century BCE when he said "one cannot step in the same river twice."

It's not original for the simple reason that something can be original *only* once. Original is unique. Anything else is something else.

When those "same hands" finished the frame the first time, it was a different time. They were different people, their work would have been different, in very subtle or very obvious ways. But all that is just static. The basic philosophical question is easily disposed of, it seems to me.
>From a technical point-of-view, the paints and clears were very different. Prep and application were somewhat different, and the end result was different too, mainly because paints were much thinner and went on accordingly. At least, in my experience.

Charles *original rules, period* Andrews Los Angeles