The problem seems to be that we are all choosing different words for a bike which has been altered from original. Would the most useful division of vintage bikes for show judging be "original" and "not original'? And then pick a sympathetic word for the "not original" class, whether it would be refurbished, restored renewed, repainted or recreated? The task then is to decide what constitutes "original", and all bikes that aren't original go into the other class. My suggested definition would be strict: an original bike must have the original finish, no alterations to the frame and have either the original parts or period correct replacement components. Even a repaint by the original builder/painter takes a bike out of the original class.
I don't see any substantial utility in further subdividing the "not original" class based on whether the bike has been repainted, because any bike that has been changed structurally is almost always going to get a new paint job, if only to cover up the burned paint from the structural change or repair. So the vast majority of bikes in this class would be repaints or at least severely touched up.
I suppose you could make a division for not original bikes with all period correct parts vs. bikes with some/all modern stuff, if you have a lot of bikes to judge. And then perhaps another class for a bike with intact frame and original finish but some modern parts. Does that cover everything? But now we're up to 4 classes, which is probably too many for convenience.
Manhattan, Kansas, USA
From: Michael Allison <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [CR] Ciclo Locomotiva - "sympathetic restoration"? To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Date: Monday, July 20, 2009, 11:19 AM
NOT!! Repainted is repainted. Restored is a different animal.
New York, NY