Dear List:
Charles raises a point ( or did Lou?) with which I agree wholeheartedly, that historically significant "patina" is an entirely different situation. If Coppi's sweat created those TT rust spots, preserve at all costs, I say. It's on the rest of the bikes that we differ.
But really, how much do we really differ? I think two points serve to considerably narrow the focus of our debate. First, Like Charles, I like original finishes, but only when you can see the majority of what the "factory" orginally installed for paint and graphics. Some honorable battle scars improve any bike, to my eye. It's only when most of the graphics have vanished, or the paint gets ugly, or worse, no longer protects substantial portions of the frame from rust, that I start searching for replacement decals, whereas Charles would hold out longer than me to preserve the original paint. I don't automatically repaint every frame that comes into my hands, and Charles does get the occasional frame redone.
And the second constraint would be that I suspect we're mostly debating frames from large shops that had a signature paint style. Reparto Corse Bianchis are supposed to be Celeste, Cinellis are happiest wearing fine grained silver, and Raleigh Pros should be mink blue and silver. But if a frame came from a small shop with colour as chosen by the first buyer, then do we care very much if a subsequent owner changes the colour? Just as an example, my MKM was orginally silver with red ST panel and head tube. Only the headbadge was left of the graphics, and paint was beat all over. I had it repainted sky blue with black lug lining. How high does that register on Herr Andrews' scale of aesthetic no-nos? Substantially below having an original Bianchi resprayed hot pink, I would bet. (Although didn't some of the Japanese Bianchis come in pink? Nice, as I recall.) If I've misstated your position Charles, please do set me straight.
So I suspect that over 90% of the bikes in CR land would generate no controversy. It's only at the extremes that we disagree, and those cordial disagreements are the fun part of this list. Can't wait to see what Charles is riding next: it's always worth a look see.
Tom Adams, Shrewsbury, NJ
Charles Andrews <chasds@mindspring.com> wrote: As usual, Lou addressed an essential point:
ant for him, but never ridden. Likewise, a NOS Bianchi from 1951 might be worth a bunch, but a very well worn Coppi ridden Bianchi in F condition  might be worth a lot more than NOS.
**********
Not only would that well-worn Bianchi ridden by Coppi (it would have to come with solid-gold verification, btw), be worth FAR more than any anonymous NOS Bianchi of the same sort to most people, it would be far more entertaining as a piece of history than the NOS bike would be.
At least, in the market I'm familiar with.
Bicycles are a lovely combination of tool, art, and entertainment to those of us who love them. I would be wary of ever assigning great value to any one aspect of a bicycle, since each of us values these things a little differently.
But provenance, of various kinds, is certainly a big, big variable in assessing value. Of any kind.
Charles Andrews Los Angeles
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.