RE: [CR]State of the Art restorations

(Example: Framebuilding:Brazing Technique)

In-Reply-To: <39020-220045514203427960@M2W041.mail2web.com>
References: <39020-220045514203427960@M2W041.mail2web.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:45:55 -0700
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine93@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [CR]State of the Art restorations


Peter,

You raise some good points. It all depends. If parts were added/subtracted by a well-meaning, but not to competent owner, I'd say put it back to how it used to be. On my 1965 Cinelli, the rear derailleur shifted into the spokes. The guy put on a Simplex. That was the only change from original spec. I replaced that with the correct (according to the original invoice) Campy Record.

On the other hand, my racing bike of more than 10 years of racing is a hodge-podge - as I raced it. No way will that be put together as the full Campy SR bike that it never was! It's got Dia-Compe brake levers, Brooks saddle, Croce d'Aune cranks and a C-Rec BB, Simplex shift levers, etc. It would look nicer with an SR crankset, but that is besides the point. I may switch back to the original, round-bend TTT bars, though... instead of the ugly TTT Formas it currently wears. I will claim that I was about to do that while I was racing! But now, that I am writing this, I have second thoughts.

Some bikes are just too weird for their own good. The original owner of my Singer camping bike had strange ideas, and the bike's racks really didn't work too well. He also liked reflectors, including the big spoon to keep cars at a distance that was popular in Europe in the late 1970s - all with their little braze-ons. When I had it repainted, I changed the color, had new rear racks made by the Singer shop, and it now is my bike. Out of respect for the original owner, I kept the second set of Mafac Racer brakes on the rear wheel (3 total) and two small reflectors on the front rack. But that is as far as I went. I figure now it is as it would have been if I had ordered it in 1985. Plus, the original owner never got around to that tour around the world... so it doesn't really have much history.

I think it comes down to whether the bike has an identifiable history. In that case, I'd keep the alterations. If the alterations don't make sense...

As far as the reflectors - I prefer my bikes how they were ridden, not how they were sold. And few kept those reflectors after their third ride! -- Jan Heine, Seattle Editor/Publisher Vintage Bicycle Quarterly http://www.mindspring.com/~heine/bikesite/bikesite/
>The only aspect that's poses a potential problem for those of us who like
>to stay "in period" is dealing with what was the normal routine for top-end
>machines of the 1950s-1960s, at least in the UK. You bought the frame and
>added your choice of components. Fine so far.. you'd wind up wanting to
>save what hopefully is a nice selection of choice bits of the period. But
>often the process didn't stop there. Very often you see lovely late 40s and
>early 50s frames with components from every era imaginable. Original owner,
>receipts etc. But a machine full of character that winds up reflecting an
>era when blokes kept a treasured mount forever and upgraded it. Such
>machines are "period correct" I guess being original to what their owner
>preferred etc, but they are an important grey area in all this. I'd be
>sorely tempted to "restore" back to period components to match the frame
>and I think that might be considered bad form among some preservationists.
>
>Fortunately, except for my RRA, all of my collection is comprised of
>production line stuff, ground out like sausages and complete with what God
>and the line manager deemed good enough for mere mortals at the time. The
>specs varied a bit of course but it's easier to find out what SHOULD have
>been on what model. It's a great feeling stripping off mod-cons and ersatz
>bits on a classic bike and watch it morph back to the brochure pix. But how
>many of us can bear to put back or save those 'orrible USDOT reflectors?
>Not me... that's going too far!
>
>Peter Kohler
>Washington DC USA
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .