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

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2004)

From: Stephen James <sj52@hotmail.com>
To: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 21:28:47 +0000
In-Reply-To: <261563.29864.qm@web82205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <BAY123-W7E92253BA9C2300B5BB5ED1980@phx.gbl>


Hmm, this leads me to the question: if I find a brand new 1961 Cinelli in a time capsule, is it more original than one that had not been in the ca psule? That is: for the purposes of a bike show. I'm not really questioni ng the idea of an "original" being an unretouched as opposed to an untouche d object. I'm wondering whether "original" is a meaningful criteria, not whether it's a valid category.

I suppose I'd argue that a beautiful object is being done justice when it i s restored to its intended beauty. Else, a beautiful copy of that object would be at least as valuable from that standpoint. I also think that the re is certainly room for all level of restoration (in terms of competition) .

I also think that another reason there is often a preference for unrestored bikes is that the people who judge them already know how beautiful the bik es were. In my opinion, it would certainly be a shame if future riders , amateurs and even museum goers would not be able to see a Masi or Confe nte, etc., the way the makers intended them to be seen. However, whe n it comes to most of 'my' bikes, the reason I do not retouch them is bec ause I'm aiming to return them to the state that I remember from my youth.

What do I know, but "period correct" seems to go along with "original" an d "as manufactured." However, different showrooms may have had different inventories. And if they're like many bike stores today, factory equipm ent may not always have been standard. I, for ex., am sure that I boug ht a bike in 1970 (new) that was actually built in 1967, but had lain in the storeroom. I guess I'd have to ask, would that fact take away or gai n points for originalness.

Btw, on that last word, originality has another meaning that lends itse lf to the discussion of custom and customized bicycles.

regards, Steve James Bx, NY

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:49:45 -0700From: jerrymoos@sbcglobal.netSubject: RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"To: sj52@hotmail.com; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org I would think, that for purposes of a bike show, "original" and "unrest ored' should mean the same thing. And personally I believe that that shoul d apply only to the frame. Since a lot of bikes could be ordered with cust omized components, many owners will not even know what might have been or iginal, and even production bikes often varied from what the catalog stat ed. I my opinion, "original" should just mean the frame has not been ref inished. Even that has a bit of a gray area. Do new decals over existing paint constitute refinishing? What about replacing one small decal? And w hat about a frame on which a shop repaired a dent and repainted just the su rrounding area - I have two like that.

Now, while I think only the frame should be used to qualify the bike for the "original" category, the correctness of the equipment is certainly a legitimate judging criterion. Obviously incorrect equipment will normally cost a bike points, even in a Restored category, but probably even more so in an Original category. I think most judges will do this. Conversely , items which can be shown to be definitely original to the individual bi ke, rather than merely correct, wiil usually add points in the judging.

Regards,

Jerry Moos Big Spring, Texas, USA Stephen James <sj52@hotmail.com> wrote: I am curious why the distinction is between "original" and "restored", ra ther than "restored" and "unrestored", for example.What, incidentally , would be the groups' idea of criteria for restoration. Is repainting to o much?Steve JamesBx., NY> From: cnighbor1@comcast.net> To: classicrendez vous@bikelist.org>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:38:32 -0700> Subject: [CR]Comm ent on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"> > To make judg ing easier for Cirque bike classification: "original" vs.. > "restored" why
   not do this, have entries state which class they are > completing in. Th an for original classification entries have owner on a > standard Cirque pr ovided form list the original parts and frame. > Allowing for comments to b e included. Than judge it using form checking > to see if it meets form aft er first reviewing form for correctness. For > restored judge it is has it is right now.> Just a thought> > Charles Nighbor> Walnut Creek, CA> PS I always when entering a bicycle judging contest include a water > bottle wit h fresh flowers in it. And match or contrast flower color to > bicycle colo r. Judges can't resist giving a few more points.> > > > --- StripMime Repor t -- processed MIME parts ---> multipart/alternative> text/plain (text body
   -- kept)> text/html> ---> _______________________________________________>
   Classicrendezvous mailing list> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> http://www .bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous___________________________ ______________________________________Don't get caught with egg on your fac e. Play chicktionary!http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wl hmtextlink1_feb--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---multipart/al ternativetext/plain (text body -- kept)text/html---________________________ _______________________Classicrendezvous mailing listClassicrendezvous@bike list.orghttp://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous _________________________________________________________________ Watch \u201cCause Effect,\u201d a show about real people making a real differen ce. Learn more. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause