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

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Campagnolo)

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:22:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: <gholl@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
In-reply-to: <461455.61341.qm@web82211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
References: <8801bb250706021147u5d03634ane43fe8f8e1ad82a2@mail.gmail.com>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Now we're really starting to conflate various concepts. Provenance, in art, has to do with a notion similar to "chain of custody," which helps in determining originality, especially of unsigned objects. The fact that someone likes the alterations he made in a bike may make it more attractive to him, but has nothing to do with the accepted meaning of provenance. Other people may or may not appreciate those changes. In the long run, I suspect that almost all steel bikes will have to undergo some form of restoration, some may prefer to call that "conservation," but that's just another semantic argument. For all I can see there's nothing intrinsically superior about an "original" bike to a restored one, if the restorations are well done. The real test with collectables will one of time-what will be appreciated in, let's say, one hundred years-the conventional definition of a true antique.
George Hollenberg MD
CT,USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerome & Elizabeth Moos"
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:05:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
To: "Mitch Harris", "Jonathanadamgree@aol.com"
Cc: jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


> My thinking is that provence trumps originality. And although
> we usually think of provenance in terms of a bike being used by
> a famous racer, I think the Gitane has personal provenance for
> you. Changes made in one's youth are a reminder of that youth,
> and assuming that youth was a relatively happy one, I'd tend to
> preserve the changes.
>
> I have a similar issue with a LeJeune F-70 (on the CR site)
> that I bought new in 1973 (or maybe 1972). At the first repaint
> I had some brazeons added. I did not have them removed at a
> second repaint and restoration. One reason was that brazeons
> reduce paint damage from component clamps. But the more
> important reason is that the brazeons were added by the late Ray
> Gasorowski, the bulider of Romic frames, of which I own two. So
> preserving the brazeons in some small way preserves Ray's
> memory.
>
> I also have an Austro-Daimler Superleight (also on the CR
> site) which Ray repainted, masking the original beige sections
> with the original decals to preserve said decals, while painting
> the rest chocolate brown. I didn't realize at the time what a
> pain in the ass that was for him, but he didn't complain, and
> didn't charge me a lot extra. To restore this to original now
> would be unthinkable. An original A-D Superleight is not nearly
> as rare as the memory of Ray's skill and his good nature.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, TX
>
>
>
> Mitch Harris wrote:
> Quote:
> "in my opinion the strict sense of original means original.
> But if you
> compare these bikes to a stradivarius or amati violin the line
> begins to fade. None
> or very few of those instruments exist in an original state.
> They were/are
> modified by other luthiers. It does not seem to decrease value
> because the
> instruments may not still exist without help. Maybe comparing
> frames to old
> fiddles or old master pieces is incorrect, but it might be in
> 300-400 more years."
> __________________________________
> I'm enjoying the comparison to violins because the greatest
> players in the most important concerts are likely to be using
> them--these older relics seem to out-perform the modern
> instruments. Think if Lance showed up on the start line on a
> rare and carefully preserved 40's Urago because he made him more
> able to win the tour, while the other riders looked on enviously
> from carbon Treks.
>
> I'm wondering about the issue Jerry brought up because I'm
> about to have my 1975 Gitane refinished and I'm trying to figure
> out whether to restore it to original spec. when I bought it new
> when I was 16. I didn't like the color (what can you say to a 16
> year old kid) and I had it repainted soon after I bought it, and
> also had them cut up the shifter clamp to make braze-on shifter
> pods for the Huret Jubilee shift levers. Also had him braze on
> top-of-bracket cable guides. I raced it that way as a teenager,
> and today it still has the original Huret Jubilee shift levers
> mounted on the custom-made braze-ons. Should I shop for a Huret
> shifter clamp and bb-cable guide and have the braze-ons removed,
> or are these modifications--made my an enthusiastic new racer
> kid--to be thought of as "original" in the sense of use
> original?
>
> Mitch Harris
> Little Rock Canyon, Utah
>
>
>
> On 6/2/07, Jonathanadamgree@aol.com
> wrote:
> In a message dated 6/2/2007 1:14:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> So are these originals or restorations? If the same hands
> finish it a
> second time, is it then again "original"?
>
>
>
> Jerry,
>
> Jonathan Greene
> Oviedo FL
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>

George Hollenberg MD
CT, USA