[CR] "Original" Bikes: Now An anarchistic view?

(Example: Framebuilders:Brian Baylis)

From: Tom Sanders <tom@orderandchaos.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:17:09 -0400
thread-index: AcrK+Br9eVh/KvcyQJub8fBeSnpAdQ==
Subject: [CR] "Original" Bikes: Now An anarchistic view?


Such a slippery slope this originality thing is. So many things can enter into it. And these are not just trivial considerations. Yet we have many folks who swear they are consummate judges of originality. George Allen stated "I do not know how bikes are judged at shows." And George is both an honorable man and a darn shrewd judge of bicycles. As someone who has shown quite a few bikes, I have to say the same thing, I never know either. Criteria changes from one show to another and from one judge to another. Perhaps there are some bikes that are absolute time capsules and exist beyond all doubt exactly the way they came from the original bike shop, or the factory, or whatever, but perhaps we should cut some slack where this originality is concerned and just say that a bike is properly equipped or modified. Those bikes that are known to be true time capsules like the bikes we have seen John Barron unpacking from the original boxes are darn few and far between. I've only had one bike like that myself. We can safely judge the level of craftsmanship exhibited in the bike, the appropriateness of the components, the taste with which it was modified, but for absolute originality it is a conundrum like the Polynesian Witch Doctors faced when trying to ascertain virginity for potential sacrifices to the Volcano Gods, fun to contemplate, but really, who knows? I think they gave it up for a bad job.

I know there are a few real experts out there, but even they are making an educated guess nearly all the time.

I'd like to see less emphasis on originality both in judging bikes at shows and in discussing fellow vintage folk's rides.

Tom Sanders

Lansing, MI USA