[CR]Re: Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"

(Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley)

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: <wheelman@nac.net>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Re: Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"

Realizing that my bikes are not yet in this league, still I have some thoughts here. Bicycle collecting is relatively new and there are folks out there who know more about bikes then I ever will so I would rely on their expertise regarding finish, components and all.

Still it is no easy task even if you are an expert. I think how many times I have read a story about a fake Rembrandt, or DaVinci hanging in a museum for years before it is discovered to be a fake. This means that scholars, experts and all got it wrong. I don't expect perfection in judging bicycles for a show, I expect relative expertise applied to he best of ones ability. Unless we want to get into FBI analysis of paint & steel. If there were a $1,000,000 prize at stake for the winner then it would be more then just a hobby and friendly competition.

I am dubious of anyone using the term, out of the box, original untouched or never screwed with. This means a bike from the 30s - 70s has it original grease already turned to varnish in many cases. That sure sounds appealing to me as a prospective buyer. I wonder how many "Original" show cars still have the original oil and grease in them.

Ray Homiski
Elizabeth, NJ USA