Re: [CR]Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"

(Example: Production Builders:Cinelli)

Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:32:42 -0400
From: "Harvey Sachs" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
To: Classic Rendezvous <>,, "weigle >> Peter Weigle" <>

Well, I guess that I did set off a bit of a firestorm, with many on- and off-list responses, all of them thoughtful. I liked Eddie Albert's (below) from the perspective of a judge and experienced collector. Clearly, we all have different perspectives, and the discussion has helped me clarify my values. Maybe I can summarize where it has gotten me, recognizing that others have different priorities.

1) I didn't start collecting. I just didn't sell a few bikes that got older, and discovered that I had a small collection of nice bikes. Bikes that I ride for pleasure, and for the memories they hold. We've had at least three of our bikes for more than 30 years. 2) First time at Cirque, many decades ago (?), I was disappointed that the judges didn't share my high opinion of my "perfect" '65 Paramount (which isn't). Moral: Peter Weigle is right: call out the runners up; make more people happy. 3) Since then, I guess I've gotten more comfortable in my own skin. My bikes are going to be ridden, and they are going to get scuffed. and I'm not good about cleaning the dust and mud off them. I figure that the major reason to show them is that some folks will be interested, and they will see through the dust. I've ridden my '38 Paramount on a century and lots of other rides, and it has paint chips in several places. So be it; I'm gonna ride with a brake when I ride on the road. 4) So, I'll leave the conversation about how to do criteria and judging to my great friends who enjoy this, and maybe figure a way to identify my scarred bikes with purple hearts. :-) 5) But, a parting shot: I do think that "Original" or "Unrestored" criteria should apply only to the frameset, not the piece-parts hung on it. Ain't no good way to tell about the parts, so let''s not abuse ourselves. FWIW, I also agree with the spirit of Edward's suggestion about not showing a bike that is a mish-mash if you expect it to be seen as a vintage. But, I'm not opposed to new or old framesets with modern parts. Just not for representing as vintage.

thanks, everyone, for the good vibes and great thoughts.

harvey sachs mcLean va, estados unidos de america

++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ed Albert wrote: Harvey,

Your post raises questions that go to the very heart of the issue of judging, questions that we faced at this years Cirque. (I hope I am not in for a barrage of hate mail now). And, questions that have come up after every Cirque at least as long as I have been involved. 1. In the first place your post correctly points to a problematic issue but only one of many and cries out for our \u201chobby\u201d to establish more formal rules for judging or to give up the judging entirely. My own feelings on this matter are on record and I will not bore you all with them again 2. Re the specifics of the post concerning restored vs. unrestored. In the main I believe the spirit of Peter\u2019s suggestion is correct. The Judges this year were sometimes at a loss to decide if a bike was in its original condition or was a repaint. In a few cases we got it wrong. Insofar as time was short and there was nobody around to ask, we made our best judgment call. In my own view when one talks about \u201cunrestored\u201d the central criteria is paint and, secondarily, parts. Does the bike, in the main, retain the original finish put on the bike at the time it was made and are the parts ones that could, conceivably, have been on the bike when the bike was assembled. 3. If the bike is deemed unrestored and the parts are \u201crelatively\u201d correct for the date given, then judging can proceed on other criteria. Does, for example, a bike identified as say 1975 which has a rear Campag derailleur dated Pat. 74 or 75 have its original derailleur or a replacemen t (for whatever reason)\u2026who can tell? We must assume if not its originality at least its correctness. But, on the other hand, if a bike dated, say 1962, has a Nuovo Record Derailleur and not a \u201cRecord\u201d model then, IMHO that is a point against it. 4. We viewed many beautiful unrestored bikes this year that contained a mishmash of parts that were clearly on the bike because it was, first and foremost, a rider and these parts worked. I see no problem in that except that if one enters a bike to be judged than one must realize that some sort of criteria must be applied and inappropriate parts is an obvious one and, again IMHO, one that merits deductions when comparing to others in the class that contain if not original, at least period appropriate parts. If one does not care at least to remove the modern oversize waterbottle from the cage than I have to ask why bother to enter the bike for judging in the first place. Display the bike\u2026absolutely, but to expect to be considered seriously for an award, absolutely not. 5. Peter\u2019s Post (pun intended) also made reference to the usefulness of including runners up in each category as a way of encouraging more participants and giving them incentive for next time. I am in full agreement with that suggestion.

I am also in favor of retaining a revamped, more objective, judging process. Judging improves the breed while the \u201cI\u2019m ok, your ok\u201d perspective leads to mediocrity. Let the chips fall.

Edward Albert
Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.