I really like Tom Adams dividing everything essentially into two clear and unambiguous categories. If one begins sliding down the slope to multiple categorical distinctions and subdistinctions, that logic will almost inevitably run away into a taxanomical nightmare of disagreements over minutae.
As for Steve's further comments quoted below on mods made to racing bikes and their implications for which side of the "original" "non-original" line they fall into, I think there's a pretty simple and logical test to apply: Racing bikes generally have short careers at their intended use. A racing bike four or five years old is bordering on being a relic or anachronism and unlikely to any longer be used as a serious racing tool. So... I'd reckon that mods faithful to the bike's purpose made contemporary to its being a viable racing tool- maybe three, four, five years at most past its initial build date- should probably be allowed as original and any mods made after that brief period of a racing bike's being considered a viable tool would probably fall into the "non-original" category.
The obvious exceptions would be cogs/FWs, chainrings, chains, tires, tubes, bar tape, cables and housing, brake hoods and pads, spokes maybe rims- stuff like that that would routinely be replaced on any bike that is ridden- even a "young" bike. Consumables in other words Surely we must allow those pieces to be replaced by pieces that are similar to the originals in look and spirit where original parts are unavailable or prohibitively rare and costly for use, while at the same time giving credit when those details are correct.
This is a subject that is obviously central to the hobby so I don't expect the discussion will ever be truly laid to rest.
Kurt Sperry Bellingham,Washington USA
2009/7/20 Steve Birmingham <email@example.com>:
> A tough question, as there's varying levels of restoration and preservation.
> Even a Coppi bike in a museum wouldn't be strictly "original" since he or
> his mechanic would have changed
> parts for the next race. It may be "The bike" but concessions to its
> original use would have to be made.
> For production bikes and most custom bikes I think getting close to catalog
> spec is fine, and a repaint
> would be proper either in restored or in a class for modified bikes if the
> paint was changed from the original
> color -Or from an originally available color to make it simpler.
> But some actually raced bikes don't and can't fit those categories.
> The bike I'm bringing to the Lars show is a great example of that. Raced in
> a pretty major event.
> repainted for a sponsorship change, shifter moved for some reason. So which
> era does it get "restored" to?
> Then there's the matter of specially made and unavailable parts, which I've
> It's in "original" paint, after a fashion, and the actual original markings
> are under the paint and visible from the right angle. But NONE of the parts
> are original in any way.
> I call it reconstructed. There's probably a better word, but that's the best
> I've found so far.
> So another category.
> I have an idea about judging, but it's due for a post of its own
> Steve Birmingham
> Lowell, Massachusetts
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:35:46 -0700
> From: Thomas Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: [CR] Does restored= repainted? was Re: Ciclo Locomotiva -
> "sympathetic restoration"?
> To: <email@example.com>, Michael Allison <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com
> Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 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.?
> Tom Adams
> Manhattan, Kansas, USA