[CR]Patina - was When is a restoration not a restoration?

(Example: Framebuilding)

Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 21:37:21 -0400
To: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
From: "John Betmanis" <johnb@oxford.net>
In-Reply-To: <e7feea1912b7f.4662032f@optonline.net>
References: <4661EF8B.9080409@comcast.net> <552803.84261.qm@web82211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <e400bff313842.4661c9e5@optonline.net>
Subject: [CR]Patina - was When is a restoration not a restoration?

At 11:54 PM 02/06/2007 +0000, gholl@optonline.net wrote:
>As far as bikes are concerned, I believe that the idea that in many ca
>ses what passes as "patina" is merely damage that, in the case of
> bikes, that for whatever reason, the owner is either unwilling or u
>nable to repair. The tale that this injury tells is too frequently one
> of accidental or deliberate misuse and, in the long run, will lead
>directly to the deterioration of the bike. In order to make a virtue o
>f bike neglect, the issue of "patina" is trumped up. Vice become
>s virtue.

Yes, I've seen lots of pictures of vintage bikes posted that to me looked like rusty hunks of junk. Their only redeeming quality was that they were significant or rare bikes from a past era. I first heard the word "patina' used in relation guns and coins. You were never supposed to polish a gun that had acquired a patina over years of loving use. Patina was not rust, pitting or scratches, but how the blueing had changed colour and worn thin in places. I remember seeing bikes in the UK, when "flamboyant" paint was popular, with both sides of the top tube worn down to the silver. That I would call patina. However, if there is rust bubbling from under chrome and scratches and chips in the paint, that I would call a rusty, neglected bike. At that point you would need a restoration if the bike was worth it.

John Betmanis
Woodstock, Ontario