This is an excellent discussion of this topic. I think a few more points are worth mentioning.
The strong conservation attitude prevalent among antique furniture collectors is really not relevent. Interior wood pieces can survive for hundreds or even thousands of years without any preservative treatment. The finish is really only decorative, and considered integral to the piece.
Contrarywise, in antique automobiles, restoration is the rule. Like bicycles, in order to be kept working, a constant process of restoration is necessary. At a vintage automobile rally, the vehicles are generally finished to a much higher standard than original. This increases their value. Rust and cracking paint aren't that interesting, and must be stopped if an item is to be maintained.
Finally, there is the museum-piece approach, which attempts to freeze an object in time. Not 100% feasible in most cases, and unless a piece is really of historical significance, what is the point?
For bicycles, a mixed approach seems appropriate, depending on the particular cycle in question and what the owner wants to achieve. Here in Florida, bicycles without good finishes rust away in no time, so restoration or interior storage are the only real options.
Louis Schulman Tampa, Florida
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Williams <castell5@sympatico.ca>
Suzy and all,
Here we enter into the age old question in the world of conservation - that of preserve as is, completely restore, or allow to perish? Of course, the latter is never seen as an option if at all possible (although, I have spent over twenty years in the capacity of professional archaeologist and even I am now of the opinion that not all can be saved).
I have been musing over this discussion of clear-coating and whether to cover the original paintwork and the rust. I always run these discussions past my wife, Maureen, who, as I have mentioned on the list before, was a government based archaeological and objects conservator for over fifteen years, specializing in metals. Let me tell you she has seen rust - from iron age cauldrons to mediaeval suits of armour to cannons to more recent household objects - in many of these cases all that was left of the metal was corrosion product and the hollow where the metal object had originally been. Her time was split between cleaning, writing condition reports, and advising museums and historical sites about the proper storage and display of objects.
Many of us have been influenced in our desire to preserve such things as "patina" by programs like the Antiques Roadshow (in particular, the North American version) where there is often an obsession with maintaining the original finish of wooden furniture (and, of course, its value). Patina and original condition are interesting issues which tie into discussions of both authenticity and of artistic and creative intent. But, in reality, patina has the most value when there is a good provenance and/or historical narrative about an object: when it can be tied to a particular owner, place, event, maker, etc. In other words when it has a certain story of significance; when it can be shown in some way to be "special." Often "patina" tells us little more than a story of neglect and abuse. Now, this is often a very personal issue and I am not dictating what stories people might individually find important. Certainly, if a bike is important to the "cycling world' then it should be considered in a different light. This then raises other issues about conservation versus restoration. Often these terms are incorrectly seen to be interchangeable.
Conservation refers to the process of cleaning, repairing, and attempting to maintain an object in its "as-is" state. Moreover, it also is concerned with preventing or slowing down any further deterioration. In this sense, there is a concern for preserving artistic intent and in making any of the interventions, including touch-up painting, reversible. Much of the battle waged by conservators is over the conditions of both storage and display of the conserved (and even unconserved) items: the control of humidity; temperature; exposure to things like chemical, solvents, pollutants; and, how an object is handled. In the case of conserving something like the Malvern Star, conservation may render the bike less durable in the long run, certainly if it is to be used. If the intention is to hang the bike on a wall and treat as a museum object - and providing that all its display conditions are correct - then it may remain relatively stable. The difficulty is that there is a real limitation to conserving metals and, in the long term, in maintining the stability of metal objects. Things corrode, some more quickly than others. Painting over corrosion - either enamelling or clear-coating is not a good option. Unless one can control issues of humidity and ensure that the layer is impermeable to moisture and oxygen the corrosion will continue. The corrosion proccess produces rust (iron oxides) which are bulky and tend to push paint off. Any break in that covering will focus the corrosion - in a sense it acts like a little battery - an electro-chemical reation. The small area of exposed metal results in a more rapid corrosion than would take place on bare metal. A classic of this is rust pitting and bubbling in chrome as the result of damage to the chrome. There is a proviso, however, that the whole process of iron corrosion is still not fully understood.
If you wish to go the conservation route - clean back the affected areas (i.e. scrape off all visible corrosion product), get rid of things (salts, grease, etc.) which cause the rust, apply a separation layer (e.g. acrylic polymer - conservators, remember, don't believe in applying anything which can't be reversed). You may then go another step if you wish and touch up the paint to try and match but not completely duplicate the original (the idea is to be able to determine what is original and what is added). This is a very time-consuming process which requires a great deal of skill.
On occasion though, keeping the original surface may prove detrimental to the long-term future of something like an historical steel bicycle. Restoration, unlike conservation, usually refers to the practice of returning an object to something approaching its original condition. This requires the stripping of things like old paint and replacing it with a new finish based on the old.
But, the question is one of how you wish to experience a bike like the Malvern Star - as a relic, an object to be enjoyed for its aesthetic qualities or as a bike to be enjoyed for its intended purpose. As others have pointed out, the reality is that this is a decision that you must make based on the long term future of the Malvern Star and on your own intended use of the same. I believe, that a complete restoration should not be seen as "vandalism" -- in truth, that has already taken place through a former owner's neglect. The rarity of the bicycle aside, the importance of this machine, at least IMHO, is in the machine itself and in how it rides (and one hopes how it may continue to be ridden for many more years to come).
Maureen's suggestion would be to fully document the frame in detail - in other words to keep a record of how it appeared. Then to strip the paint down to bare metal, to control the things which can cause rust - or which kickstart the corrosion process - to get it cleaned (i.e. degreased, washed of salts, etc.), dried and then repainted following the original scheme if you wish. And finally to enjoy riding it!!!!!
There is much literature out there on the treatment of metals, if anyone
is interested including: the Canadian Conservation Notes (CCI where
Maureen trained at one time) from one of the world's leading research
facilities - https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/
Paul Williams,
Ottawa, ON, Canada