RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v.

(Example: Framebuilders:Norman Taylor)

From: "Peter Weigle" <jpweigle@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Classicrendezvous@Bikelist.Org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v.
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 16:19:49 -0400
reply-type=original

I like Steve James's restored or un-restored names better than what I said in my original post, thanks S.

Touching up chips and nicks is an honest attempt at keeping the original finish in good condition.

But yes, a repaint would be a restoration in my mind. Example,the Motobecane I brought to Cirque this year had some original paint on it and some (quite a bit) of new, flattened down and distressed repainted areas blended into the original.

I tried to retain the original "flavor" of the old bike, war wounds and all. I didn't want to make it look like a new shiny replica of an old bike. I think most who saw it thought it was a well preserved, cleaned up a little, un-restored bike.

In my mind this was a kind of restoration and had the registration card had a box for restored or un-restored I would have checked restored,,it would have helped the judges catagorize the bike. (This kind of restoration is almost a third catagory,,,),,, oh never mind.

Like most I take the judging with a grain of salt and didn't mean my comments to turn the judging into a nit picky sort of affair, just thought checking off the appropriate box would be useful and helpful.

The parts are a whole other deal and I'll leave that to the experts!

peter weigle
Lyme, Ct.