Re: [CR] [Bulk] restoration and originality - philosophical test

Example: History:Ted Ernst

From: Matt Klucha <>
To: 'Mark Lawrence' <>, <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:30:48 -0400
Organization: Matt Klucha
Thread-Index: AcoKAWM/eiO+UL2KTVKxogWu59dVUAAErWqA
Subject: Re: [CR] [Bulk] restoration and originality - philosophical test

Not sure about the philosophical thing, but...

It's a tricky question, but my gut tells me that a framebuilder (from a builder perspective) that has his frames travel through the generations might be most honoured - components and paint ultimately wear after all - a well built frame/fork will last a long long time.

On the flipside, a frameset equipped as it originally might have been at its time of creation is a lovely thing.

In between, how do you plan to use the bike, will your riding experience be compromised either way?

What would Jack have done in your situation?

Was Da Vinci more interested in the Mona Lisa or the border or both? (too over the top?)


Matt Klucha

MSH1 Bicycle Works M.P. Klucha

-----Original Message----- From: [] On Behalf Of Mark Lawrence Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:47 AM To: Subject: [Bulk] [CR] restoration and originality - philosophical test

I have an NOS Jack Taylor frame, that has never been painted.

It was built in 1990, covered in a primer coat by the Taylors and then put into storage when the factory closed.

It's now in my possession. I'm having it painted.

This may sound like a silly question, but I thought it would focus the philosophers.

When I have it built up, should it be a 1990 bicycle? Or a 2009 bicycle?

Mark Lawrence
United Kingdom