Re: [CR] Does restored= repainted? was Re: Ciclo Locomotiva -"sympathetic restoration"?


Example: Framebuilders:Dario Pegoretti

From: Steve Birmingham <sbirmingham@mindspring.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:27:24 -0400
Thread-Index: AcoJcBuUrTEaCagcSPiXvqHQFsLCmg==
Subject: Re: [CR] Does restored= repainted? was Re: Ciclo Locomotiva -"sympathetic restoration"?


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 made. 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 USA

Message: 6 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:35:46 -0700 From: Thomas Adams <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com> Subject: [CR] Does restored= repainted? was Re: Ciclo Locomotiva - "sympathetic restoration"? To: <jswan@optonline.net>, Michael Allison <cyclo_one@verizon.net> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Message-ID: <456045.68984.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> 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