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

(Example: Framebuilders:Tony Beek)

Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:07:50 +0000 (GMT)
From: <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
In-reply-to: <>
To: Mitch Harris <>
References: <005201c8dd3b$feefda80$6701a8c0@gatewaygpcezcz> <BAY123-W7E92253BA9C2300B5BB5ED1980@phx.gbl>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <>

An original bicycle should be in the same state as it was when it was made. The collector values the hand of the master. Any modification made subsequently, for whatever reason, diminishes the originality of the bike. As others have pointed out, this most fundamentally refers to the frameset. But, notwithstanding, an original bike should also have the same period parts as when it left the hands of the maker, or in the case of a frameset sold to another by the maker, when it was sold by him with parts appropriate to the period of manufacture. Any attempt to repair or alter a bike represents a form of restoration. Such restoration maybe slight, i.e. retouching a scratch, or replacing a small decal, or, on the other hand, may be significant , such as repainting or rechroming the entire bike. Such restoration can be done artfully and correctly, or sloppily and incorrectly. But they should not be done with an attempt to deceive the public. With use, a bike will obtain a certain pattern of damage (some, borrowing a term from the art world, call this "patina"). This patina may be also be very limited, or in other bikes, extensive. Extensive damage reduces the originality of the bike.
George Hollenberg MD

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Harris"
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:34:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
To: "Stephen James"

> So does original mean 1)original as produced by the factory or
> workshop, or 2)original as originally ridden? I suspect that for
> original racing bikes we'd prefer the latter especially because we
> reverence the choices and adaptations of racers of yore.
> Consider how
> we pore over old photos to see how a racer's bike had tape on the
> leverbodies, or lever tips. Those are riding/use choices not factory
> choices, and in cases like these post-factory choices are more
> interesting to us than the factory ones.
> >From my observation, other than old racers' bikes we tend to
> mean the
> former--we tend to want an original lightweight to be identical to
> factory spec. Our category "period correct" , if I understand it
> correctly, is a reconstructed version of this "original as
> produced by
> the factory" category.
> For an example that wouldn't fit either category, consider the 1976
> Gitane race bike (531db throuought, Huret, stronglight, Normandy,
> Hutchinson tubulars) I bought as a teen-ager and rode all "orginal"
> for a short time. Within the year I was racing it with a N.Tipo
> wheelset with Clement tubulars, and about a year later I had it
> repainted and added shift lever braze-ons and top of bb cable guides.
> That's how it was originally ridden/raced but it's way out of factory
> spec. My status as a teenage racer doesn't (in my opinion and probably
> yours) confer very much interest in it as a racers' bike--my choices
> there tell us only a little about what late 70s bike urchins
> were into
> if they didn't chase drillium and couldn't afford much Campagnolo.
> And those choices are not interesting in the same way that racers'
> taping choices in the 1960 Tour peloton are interesting. But on the
> other hand the altered bike seems original as ridden, more "original"
> in a certain sense, than if I'd left it in the box untouched for the
> last 32 years.
> Mitch Harris
> Little Rock Canyon, Utah, USA
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Stephen James
> 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
> restorati> on. Is repainting too much?
> >
> > Steve James
> > Bx., NY> From:> To:
>>> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:38:32
> -0700> Subject: [CR]Comment on Cirque bik
> > e classification: "original" v. "restored"> > To make judging
> easier for Ci
> > rque bike classification: "original" vs.. > "restored" why not
> do this, h
> > ave entries state which class they are > completing in. Than
> for original c
> > lassification entries have owner on a > standard Cirque
> provided form list
> > the original parts and frame. > Allowing for comments to be
> included. Than
> > judge it using form checking > to see if it meets form after
> first reviewin
> > g form for correctness. For > restored judge it is has it is
> right now.> Ju
> > st a thought> > Charles Nighbor> Walnut Creek, CA> PS I always
> when enter
> > ing a bicycle judging contest include a water > bottle with
> fresh flowers i
> > n it. And match or contrast flower color to > bicycle color.
> Judges can't r
> > esist giving a few more points.> > > > --- StripMime Report --
> processed MI
> > ME parts ---> multipart/alternative> text/plain (text body --
> kept)> text/h
> > tml> ---> _______________________________________________>
> Classicrendezvou> s mailing list>
> > lman/listinfo/classicrendezvous
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary!
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> _______________________________________________

George Hollenberg MD