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


Example: Component Manufacturers:Cinelli

From: "brianbaylis@juno.com" <brianbaylis@juno.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 05:55:33 GMT
To: loudeeter@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
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. Everything else

will be worth much less than those things. That's close enough. 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, there is 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 published

pricing

list by condition for bicycles like you see for coins or guns.  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 Kone (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 not what yo u

ar e suggesting/asking.  Third, provenance is a topic that Brett 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 to 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 soon?    I think not.  Heck, we can't even get universally accepted defi niti ons for "original"!  Lou Deeter, Orlando FL USA

-----Original Message----- From: gholl@optonline.net To: loudeeter@aol.com Cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> 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 one 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 novice. 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 from

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 correct parts.

So, it depends.

The point being that repainted or rebuilt isn't the same as original. It is just that, a repaint or rebuild. Mike Schmidt throws a curve at this when he mentions a NOS 1972 Montelatici that had ne 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 precisely

as Mike described it--NOS frame, originally unpainted, but painted anew

in the U.S. in the 2000s. Agreement on terminology isn't always necessary

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 restoration
   according to Lou's post) is classified as "REB: Rebuilt/repainted".
   f no modifications are made to the frame and the restoration is done
   n the spirit of "as close to the original finish, minus blems", 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 MASI
   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 wishful
   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