Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have the pleasure of knowing a guy who got me into this whole addiction to bikes. He has some gorgeous bikes, some that I would restore and others that are fine the way they are. He loves them all unconditionally and I appreciate his purist attitude in leaving them alone. What made an impact on me is that *regardless* of what anyone else thinks, he loves them just the way they are. In essence, this is like offering advice on how to raise each others kids.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have taken an abused Merckx and a neglected Carlsbad Masi and done restorations on both without even looking back. I have also seen a spray can Bottechia and appreciated the real fondness its owner has for it, pink krylon paint and all.
If you "wrestle" with a decision, then leave it alone. Who are we to say what is right or wrong or to tell you what to do. If you're in this to sell the bike and make a profit, that's a different story. For those of us who ride and enjoy our bikes with only an intention to pass them on to our kids or someone who will appreciate them as much as we do, then I say do what you want.
The beautiful thing about this decision is, it's *YOUR* bike and you'll never regret what makes you happy.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Mike Schmidt <mdschmidt56@verizon.net>
wrote:
> I don't think there is any right answer, we just have two philosophies.
>
> That 1963 chrome Herse I bought from the March family has crappy chrome but
> I wrestle with a decision to re chrome or not.
>
> If a frame is in danger, then preservation is a must.....ATMO!
>
> Mike Schmidt
> Stirling, New Jersey
> Sent from my 3G iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Thomas Adams <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear List:
>>
>> All of this, of course, has been debated several times, again and again on
>> this list, live at Cirques and Velo Rendezvous-es, and at other meetings.
>> The disagreement (mild) I have with the preservationists (thou shalt
>> not touch that original finish) is that concentrating on the paint finish
>> to such a degree distorts the purpose and function of the paint itself and
>> the bike as a whole. The bike is a tool, and the paint's functional pur
>> pose is to keep it from rusting. Once that functional aspect is compromi
>> sed, the owner is fully justified in renewing the protective finish. Pai
>> nt is a consumable item like tires and brake lever hoods: when they wear
>> out, get new stuff.
>>
>> Will the new paint be the same as the old paint? No. Why should it?
>> That's not what paint is for. No builder intends a bike's finish to
>> be eternal. If he did, he'd powder coat it. (Or blue it, maybe, in th
>> e old days.)
>>
>> And then this focus on the surface finish tends to emphasize what is to m
>> e the least important aspect of a collectible bike. What's importa
>> nt about a bike is how well it's designed to accomplish it's goal, how we
>> ll it fits the rider, how well it's assembled and how the builder worked
>> on the lugs. The paint finish is a very distant 5th, or even 6th or 7th
>> once we consider parts selection and rider modification to suit his visio
>> n. These are the soul of the bike. It's still there unchanged even if
>> resprayed in Imron metallic.
>>
>> Now, contrariwise, on the other hand, and playing devil's advocate, I do
>> lo
>> ve to look at old bikes that show their battle scars, where paint has fad
>> ed, bar tape has frayed and saddles are well scuffed. I've got a '50's H
>> oldsworth Sirocco I showed this year at Cirque that I probably won't touch
>> even though most of the paint had faded and the top tube has transformed
>> fr
>> om the original green to a sandy brown. But the bike doesn't have signif
>> icant rust issues. If it did, ooh, I don't know.
>>
>> The closest analogy I can make, as it seems to me, would be like owning a
>> collectible knife or tool with a cutting edge, and then refusing to reshar
>> pen it after it grew dull on the grounds that it would alter the tool from
>> the way it came from the original maker. That's not what the original
>> intent was for this item.
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
--
Mark Pounders
Richmond, Virginia
USA