Re: [CR]Judging criteria for bike shows

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Cinelli)

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Judging criteria for bike shows
To: Peter Naiman <hetchinspete1@yahoo.com>, "c. andrews" <chasds@mindspring.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20060614131225.5480.qmail@web30903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I think the competition only becomes a problem if one allows it to. For me, the key is not to take it too seriously. I've only ever won one prize, last year at Larz, and that was quite enjoyable and frankly unexpected. But I never come to an event with the primary purpose of trying to win a prize. I enter bikes more because I think someone might find them interesting. A few years ago, there was not a single French bike entered in the show at Cirque. So the following year, I took it upon myself to bring about half a dozen French bikes to Cirque, just so they would be represented. I didn't really expect to win a prize, and I did not, as someone else brought a Rene Herse demountable. But attendees new to the hobby at least knew that classic French bikes existed, which was the point.

There are some people who are obsessive about having every detail of a bike correct, and who take competing deadly seriously. But even that is OK to a point, since this drives them to produce some magnificant restorations that we all can enjoy looking at. We just need to try to get them to chill a bit, and learn to tolerate them when they are sometimes unable to do so.

Regards,

Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX

Peter Naiman <hetchinspete1@yahoo.com> wrote: Charles; I'm with Tom Sanders and yourself on this one. First I go to Cirque, not to be in competition with my fellow CR members and Friends, but to see my Friends, enjoy their company, do some riding and see there latest acquisitions. For me the bikes are secondary, or less important than seeing Friends. If a show strictly becomes a competition, please count me out, but no matter where Cirque is to held next I don't see this happening.

As for the judging, at Larz Anderson we've tried all types from popular choice, to voting as was done this year by a panel of judges etc, and no matter how it has been done in prior years, someone was unhappy with the manner and results. We've about 12 categories at Larz, and each category is given a prize for both restored and unrestored as well, so at Larz I find the separation works. Like yourself, I do not think a restored bike should be put up against something that is unrestored in original condition, as original is always preferred. But again, what I do at Larz shouldn't dictate how other shows are run, as each is unique. Larz is organized according to the preferences of both Maurice Bresnahan and myself.

Lastly, when I go to a show, I accept the format of the show, the voting procedure and everything else that goes along in the content of the show. If I think something might be done in a better manner, I might suggest changes to the organizer but in general I accept things as they are. I'm thankful to the organizers of all of these events because of the amount of work they put in. In general no one makes any money on events, whether it be Cirque, Chucks event - Velo in California, Larz etc. We put on the shows as a labor of love for our hobby and for our Friends within the hobby, not for monetary gain.

I've talked about this subject for years & about Larz in particular. It really bugs me when at the show, rather than attendees spending the day enjoying themselves, talking with old Friends they rarely see, a choice few spend the time sniping at others, complaining about the judging process etc. Damn it, go to have fun and enjoy the company !! Life's to short to go around bitching and moaning all of the time. My enjoyment or high for the day is when someone comes up after all is said and done to thank me for putting on the event.

Maybe that might sound to idealistic to some, but those are my thoughts.

Peter Naiman Glendale, WI

"c. andrews" wrote: One point made by another poster struck a chord with me: restorations and originals should not be competing against each other in any kind of show. They're completely different animals, imho, and should be considered as such. An original, to my way of feeling, is inherently more interesting, and more significant, than a restoration, no matter how accomplished.

The most powerful thing a restoration can do is evoke the original. If a restoration is so good that it can fool me into believing I'm looking at an original, then it's achieved as much as a restoration can achieve --besides the always-laudable goal of making the owner happy. But it's still not as interesting as an original.

Better-than-new (or different-than-new anyway) restorations may make an owner happy, but they have very little to do with an original bike. The better-than-new restoration can be very interesting, especially if it's imaginative in some way... but most of the time this kind of restoration has a tabula-raza quality that isn't very compelling. Beautiful modern paint, reproduction graphics buried in layers of clear-coat are just that. Somehow these pieces seldom coalesce into something more. A little like a physically beautiful person who doesn't have much to say. Not because they won't, but because they can't.

A restoration that's seen a lot of good use is different...now the bike once again has a story to tell. But, it's still a restoration, and not what came from the maker's shop..or from his original painter anyway.

History, however modest, is written in every original bike, whether pristine or well-used. The hand of the maker, or his proxies, are everywhere in an original. They are gone, except in pale spirit, in a restoration, most of the time anyway. For me, anyway, a restoration is *never* as pleasing as an original. It can't be, almost by definition.

Think about the Rotrax pair at the Cirque. Aside from the fact that *no-one* does that kind of pin-striping in that fashion these days (as far as I know), these bikes would just not be anywhere near as hypnotic if they were restorations.

There are always exceptions to this stuff. I'm making some general points. And my bias is clear enough: original is better. Period. A data point worth exactly what you paid for it. Although original might make you happier, in the end. And original is almost always cheaper, a not-inconsequential point considering the cost of a good restoration.

My plugged nickle.

Charles "learned all this the hard way" Andrews SoCal

"The deeper I go in considering the vanities of popular reasoning, the lighter and more foolish I find them."

--Galileo Galilei

"There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. "

-- Sam Harris