[CR] "Damaged Goods," was restoration.

(Example: Framebuilders:Norman Taylor)

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:37:50 -0400
From: "Harvey Sachs" <hmsachs@verizon.net>
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, "C. Andrews" <chasds@mindspring.com>
Subject: [CR] "Damaged Goods," was restoration.


I think that Charles Adams and others have pretty well nailed it, and I hope that the hobby doesn't devolve to that. It can't for most of us.

My sister-in-law Janet had a one-eyed terrier named Paco, which she said meant "damaged goods." By the standards of the auto concours crowds (and the antique furniture folk), all of my beloved bikes are damaged goods. For example, the '38 Paramount is pretty nice, but has chips in the new paint (I ride the thing, eh?), and the current stem is not a Schwinn part.

I got to thinking about this when visiting Roman Stankus last week. His Masi is really nice, an early twin-plate crown. But some owner updated it with cable guides and a pair of water bottle mount holes, before doing a really nice repaint with proper decals.

I love it. Has history of real use, and has a price point that makes it possible for folks like me to actually own such a beast.

May there always be Holy Grails to chase: it leaves so much more ground for us earthlings to collect and to ride.

harvey sachs mcLean va. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As a matter of theory, George's comment pretty much covers it:

Restoration is a word representing an idea. The idea is that a bike is being brought back to an original or previous condition. But this idea doesn't mean, per force, that the bike needs repainting. -- George George Hollenberg MD CT, USA ************* In practice, it strikes me that, for a concours or other competitive event, ideally, there would be a specific definition of "restoration" and a requirement for entry would be some detailed *before* pictures. Maybe it would make sense to look at what they do in major automobile concours in this area. Because from where I sit, restoration does not necessarily involve a repaint--unless the rules specified it...it might involve some very elaborate, and careful hand-touch-up of the original finish, for instance, but not a full repaint. Not to mention complete restoration on the parts-group side, which sometimes involves years worth of searching for just the right thing. Purely personal opinion here, but for me a winning restoration would be indistinguishable from a bicycle that was original in every particular (compared to all competitors). The closer the restoration comes, by whatever means, to a bike that could be mistaken for original, is a winner. So, you'd look for as-original spokes, nipples, cables, rims, cable-casing, bar-tape, tires, all small hardware. It's gotta be *exactly* the same as when it came out of the maker's shop, or out of the bike-shop that built it up back in the day--or plausibly so, anyway, where no exact documentation is available. Which is why, ideally, in a restoration competition, there would be two groups of photos: the bike as it was before the restoration began, and pictures of a completely original bike from the day. Whether or not the bike has been repainted would be relevant only insofar as that repaint gets the bike closer to as-original condition and appearance. And then there's the question of whether you're judging a restoration to as-new condition, or if you're allowing a certain degree of patina--that is, the bike can look used to the extent any self-respecting owner back in the day would have tolerated---try defining that though! <g> just a little subjective, yes?. It seems to me winners in restoration categories should be setting an example for the most valued, or most entertaining or most educational (or a combination of all three) sort of restoration. To me, that's totally, fanatically original. To others, of course, other details--not original--would be the most valued. But fanatically original bikes generally command the most on the market too, and are most coveted by expert collectors--me, I'm still learning, but collectors and riders I respect hold bikes like these in the highest regard, topped only by a bike that is, in fact, totally original and not restored in any significant way. It's a slippery slope, no doubt. A concise set of rules would sure help in judging a competition. We usually seat-of-the-pants this stuff, and inevitably there are complaints. Charles Andrews Los Angeles