Harvey,
Thanks for getting that discussion started, and for your thoughtful and meas ured response.
I also got into this small world by simply keeping my old bikes around and r iding them. Selling off my riders always seemed a bit like selling a friend. Â
Regarding the classifications, I'll leave that to the more knowledgeable amo ng us, and trust them to make appropriate decisions. I'm certain that if tho se decisions are controversial (when would THAT ever happen...), we will all have the opportunity to voice our opinions.
Thank you, Dale, for the forum.
Happy 4th of July to all!Â
Chris Wimpey
San Diego, CAÂ
USA
Land of the Free
-----Original Message----- From: Harvey Sachs <hmsachs@verizon.net> Sent: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [CR]Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
Well, I guess that I did set off a bit of a firestorm, with many on- and off-list responses, all of them thoughtful. I liked Eddie Albert's (below) from the perspective of a judge and experienced collector. Clearly, we all have different perspectives, and the discussion has helped me clarify my values. Maybe I can summarize where it has gotten me, recognizing that others have different priorities. Â
1) I didn't start collecting. I just didn't sell a few bikes that got older, and discovered that I had a small collection of nice bikes. Bikes that I ride for pleasure, and for the memories they hold. We've had at least three of our bikes for more than 30 years.Â
2) First time at Cirque, many decades ago (?), I was disappointed that the judges didn't share my high opinion of my "perfect" '65 Paramount (which isn't). Moral: Peter Weigle is right: call out the runners up; make more people happy.Â
3) Since then, I guess I've gotten more comfortable in my own skin. My bikes are going to be ridden, and they are going to get scuffed. and I'm not good about cleaning the dust and mud off them. I figure that the major reason to show them is that some folks will be interested, and they will see through the dust. I've ridden my '38 Paramount on a century and lots of other rides, and it has paint chips in several places. So be it; I'm gonna ride with a brake when I ride on the road.Â
4) So, I'll leave the conversation about how to do criteria and judging to my great friends who enjoy this, and maybe figure a way to identify my scarred bikes with purple hearts. :-)Â
5) But, a parting shot: I do think that "Original" or "Unrestored" criteria should apply only to the frameset, not the piece-parts hung on it. Ain't no good way to tell about the parts, so let''s not abuse ourselves. FWIW, I also agree with the spirit of Edward's suggestion about not showing a bike that is a mish-mash if you expect it to be seen as a vintage. But, I'm not opposed to new or old framesets with modern parts. Just not for representing as vintage. Â
thanks, everyone, for the good vibes and great thoughts. Â
harvey sachsÂ
mcLean va, estados unidos de america Â
++++++++++++++++++++++++Â
Ed Albert wrote:Â
Harvey, Â
Your post raises questions that go to the very heart of the issue ofÂ
judging, questions that we faced at this years Cirque. (I hope I am notÂ
in for a barrage of hate mail now). And, questions that have come upÂ
after every Cirque at least as long as I have been involved.Â
1. In the first place your post correctly points to a problematic issueÂ
but only one of many and cries out for our âhobbyâ to establ ish moreÂ
formal rules for judging or to give up the judging entirely. My ownÂ
feelings on this matter are on record and I will not bore you all withÂ
them againÂ
2. Re the specifics of the post concerning restored vs. unrestored. InÂ
the main I believe the spirit of Peterâs suggestion is correct. The Â
Judges this year were sometimes at a loss to decide if a bike was in itsÂ
original condition or was a repaint. In a few cases we got it wrong.Â
Insofar as time was short and there was nobody around to ask, we made our Â
best judgment call. In my own view when one talks about âunrestored âÂ
the central criteria is paint and, secondarily, parts. Does the bike, in Â
the main, retain the original finish put on the bike at the time it wasÂ
made and are the parts ones that could, conceivably, have been on the bike Â
when the bike was assembled.Â
3. If the bike is deemed unrestored and the parts are ârelatively âÂ
correct for the date given, then judging can proceed on other criteria.Â
Does, for example, a bike identified as say 1975 which has a rear CampagÂ
derailleur dated Pat. 74 or 75 have its original derailleur or a replacemen Â
t (for whatever reason)â¦who can tell? We must assume if not itsÂ
originality at least its correctness. But, on the other hand, if a bikeÂ
dated, say 1962, has a Nuovo Record Derailleur and not a âRecordâ Â
model then, IMHO that is a point against it.Â
4. We viewed many beautiful unrestored bikes this year that contained aÂ
mishmash of parts that were clearly on the bike because it was, first and Â
foremost, a rider and these parts worked. I see no problem in that except Â
that if one enters a bike to be judged than one must realize that someÂ
sort of criteria must be applied and inappropriate parts is an obvious one Â
and, again IMHO, one that merits deductions when comparing to others inÂ
the class that contain if not original, at least period appropriate parts. Â
 If one does not care at least to remove the modern oversize waterbottl eÂ
from the cage than I have to ask why bother to enter the bike for judging Â
in the first place. Display the bikeâ¦absolutely, but to expect to b eÂ
considered seriously for an award, absolutely not.Â
5. Peterâs Post (pun intended) also made reference to the usefulnes s ofÂ
 including runners up in each category as a way of encouraging moreÂ
participants and giving them incentive for next time. I am in fullÂ
agreement with that suggestion. Â
I am also in favor of retaining a revamped, more objective, judgingÂ
process. Judging improves the breed while the âIâm ok, your okâÂ
perspective leads to mediocrity. Let the chips fall. Â
Edward AlbertÂ
Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.Â
_______________________________________________Â
Classicrendezvous mailing listÂ
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.orgÂ
http://www.bikelist.org/
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/