What category would, as an example, my Cinelli fit into? It was offered as frame and fork (a lightweight model, different than the SC). The builder than used period parts plus machined Ti parts for it (also period correct).
Angel Garcia Long Valley, NJ
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <
jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't think we want too many more categories, but Tom is right that
> "hot rods" can be very interesting, and don't really have a home when the
> classes are all Restored or Original, whatever definition you apply to
> Original. As usually applied, a "hot rod" might in be entered in either
> class, depending on whether the frame at been refinished, but since the
> components are neither original, nor restored to approximately the same as
> original, these bikes will usually not win in either class.
>
> Yet, to some extent, the "hot rods" are the most authentic classic bikes
> in term of representing how a bike was typically equipped and used before it
> became a collectible. My own experience is that In The Day, neither I nor
> many people I knew attempted to keep bikes original. We were always making
> little changes as some new component became available, or as we were able to
> afford an upgrade, or just as our tastes or needs changed. So bikes sort of
> evolved over time to suit their owners changing lives, or sometimes to suit
> a new owner, when they got sold, traded or handed down. This gives bikes
> some social context, which makes them more interesting, which I think was
> largely Tom's point.
>
> Maybe we need an "Open" class for these bikes. Logically it might be just
> one Open class, not divided in to subclasses by nationality or age as is
> typically is done with Original and Restored, since hot rods usually mix
> components of different ages and nationalities. The judging would be pretty
> subjective, basically coming down to what the judges think is "coolest".
> And I'm thinking maybe an appropriate award might be the Sheldon Brown
> Award, since anyone who frequently visited Sheldon's web pages knows that he
> dearly loved hot rodding, and was constantly tinkering, modifying,
> experimenting and adapting to make bikes more useful or just more fun.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big, Spring, Texas, USA
>
>
>
>
> Edward Albert <Edward.H.Albert@hofstra.edu> wrote:
> Tom, Let me begin with the statement that, overall, I agree with you.
> How 's that for a disclaimer for what is to come :). You say "Celebrate
> diversity." Well, just what does that mean. In its original political
> context it does not really refer to a "do you own thing" approach but
> rather the idea that each culture has a character that is as viable and
> as valuable as any other and can only be judged by its own standards.
> Politically, whether I agree with that or not is not a discussion for
> this list and I will leave it there. However, I believe our use of the
> term IS appropriate to the process of judging bikes.
> In an attempt to make this post as short as possible your post
> suggests more not less categories. Each as valuable, in its own right,
> but each judged by its own criteria. Bikes claiming to be original and,
> minimally period correct, should be judged in light of their claim.
> Bikes claiming to be an expression of an individuals creativity and
> quirkiness should be judged accordingly -- perhaps leaving that up to
> the judges complete discression as to what they like. This years
> judging had the Charlie Brown award. It was, admittedly, sort of a joke
> (sorry Harvey) but the Alenax won hands down. Such categories could be
> regularized in a "serious" way and one could enter a bike that you
> believed was an expression of your won "creativity." Like the lizard
> skin colnago. Also, not my cup of campy grease but cool by its own
> standards. In short, there is room for a big tent while still
> preserving what we have come to call, sometimes disparagingly, a
> concours d'elegance where faithfulness to the original, rarity,
> historical importance, etc. become all important.
> Edward Albert
> Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
>
> >>> "Tom Sanders" 07/09/08 5:50 AM >>>
> Here it is 5:30 in the morning. I woke up thinking that I'd write Wayne
> about this very subject and when I turn on my computer, I see that he
> has
> just posted on the very issues I wanted to cover in a post to him. It
> seems
> more appropriate now to post to the list instead.
>
> I love the original and period perfect bikes I see at Cirque. I do
> feel
> that the focus has become excessively narrowed on them, however.
> Imagine a
> car show where all the entrees are just the way they rolled off the
> assembly
> line. There are such shows.they hold my interest for a little while and
> then I start thinking "Where are the Hot Rods? The Roadsters? The
> Customs?". It seems to myself and to some others that the emphasis has
> taken a turn away from any sort of individuality on the part of the
> folks
> restoring and creating bikes as hot rods or expressions of their own
> individuality. This is fine. It will work on a limited basis. We can
> make
> it a Concourse d' Elegance if we wish. Do we really wish to? I sure as
> heck do not.
>
> Where would be the room for bikes like that fantastic Hetchins with the
> 19th
> Century handlebars that won People's choice a few years ago? How about
> John
> Barron's breath taking Red Paramount with the stunning drillium
> additions of
> two years ago? Or even that ghastly but very interesting Ostrich Skin
> covered Colnago from this year? Do we really want to relegate bikes
> like
> these to some kind of second class status? Remember when we make our
> tent a
> lot smaller, a lot less bikes and folks fit beneath it.
>
> For me, every year the Cirque event becomes more and more about the
> people
> there than the bikes. The bikes are just wonderful, but the chance to
> hang
> out with friends I mostly only see once a year is even better. Lots of
> these friends have an individual idea of what they want their bikes to
> be.
> If they want absolutely original or even unrestored absolutely original
> that
> is fine with me.but there is variation in the bike owner's vision of
> their
> bikes and this variation is every bit as important as any other aspect
> of
> bike collecting, in my opinion. We need room for these varying visions
> of
> bicycle excellence and we need to do it without relegating a major (and
> to
> me most interesting) portion of folks bringing bikes to a second class
> status. The idea of folks declaring their bikes as one thing or another
> sounds good at first but the more I look at it, the more it smacks of a
> 1950s Loyalty Oath.
>
> I think we either need to judge the bikes as to how nice they are or to
> quit
> any but a People's Choice Award.
>
> Celebrate diversity.
>
> Tom Sanders
>
> Lansing, Mi USA