[CR]Real or fake Panto parts: what are we really talking about?

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2004)

From: Tom Sanders <tesanders@comcast.net>
To: <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:26:04 -0500
Thread-Index: Aclg8qXE2aRxl7HaReCxuns1QkDxYQ==
Subject: [CR]Real or fake Panto parts: what are we really talking about?

Are we talking recently pantographed parts that are not as well done as we would like? It seems to me that if they are well done, they are as "Real" as any other parts, unless specifically presented as some kind of OEM stuff that came on the bike originally. Did the bike's builder actually pantograph the parts on the "Real" ones? Seems like a well done aftermarket part is a bit like KOF unless we are really splitting hairs as to originality, and this is so often open to discussion. Whether an item came on the bike from the builder, was put on by the originally selling bike shop, added by the original or a very early owner, makes many attributions of originality a bit open to questioning.

Crummy workmanship in pantographing parts is regrettable, does it really make then less "Real"?

Are the parts in question sold as possessing some quality of historical originality, or is it just an attempt to offer a nice bike? When I put a pair of Cobalto brakes on a C Record bike because I don't care for the Deltas that may have come on it (Just for illustrative purposes, Dale, not discussing the dreaded C Record per se) it hardly seems they are not real or are fake. Riders, and sellers, too, often just want to improve the looks of a bike. This is not necessarily a deception.

Tom Sanders

Lansing, Mi USA