Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?

(Example: Framebuilders:Doug Fattic)

From: <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: [CR]When is a restoration not a restoration?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:56:58 -0400

This was a very interesting thread, but kind of in the same category as collecting vs. riding.

I have a collection of various antiques, including cameras, microscopes, clocks, lamps and other things. Every piece has undergone some level of restoration either to remove corrosion or to make the piece functional again. I would not say that anything I own is in the original condition and whether this affects the value isn't important to me. What is important is that the piece is again functional and as close to the original as possible. Then I can really enjoy it and that's the main reason for my purchase. An old 1921 Leitz microscope isn't any good unless you can see through the optics and an old Leica IIIb camera isn't any good unless the shutter functions as it should and the lens is as crisp as Leica lenses are famous for. I feel the same about vintage bikes. I got into this hobby because I love vintage bicycles. This means riding them as well as collecting them. If it takes a repaint to bring an old rusted piece of steel back to it's glory, then I'm for it.

Years ago, my uncle passed on to me a very beat up, partially rusted, 57 Thunderbird that had even been the target of a few frustrated rabbit hunters. It took a few years and a lot of money to get the car looking like brand new again. It was "restored". Restoration included using parts from similar cars as well as new parts because some were simply not available or at a price I could afford. I wouldn't say it had been "refurbished". However, when I cruise down the street, no one knows that it isn't original and it's value has increased ten fold.....Just my two cents.

Fred Durrette
Summerville, SC