Harvey,
Your post raises questions that go to the very heart of the issue of judging, questions that we faced at this years Cirque. (I hope I am not in for a barrage of hate mail now). And, questions that have come up after every Cirque at least as long as I have been involved. 1. In the first place your post correctly points to a problematic issue but only one of many and cries out for our \u201chobby\u201d to establish more formal rules for judging or to give up the judging entirely. My own feelings on this matter are on record and I will not bore you all with them again 2. Re the specifics of the post concerning restored vs. unrestored. In the main I believe the spirit of Peter\u2019s suggestion is correct. The Judges this year were sometimes at a loss to decide if a bike was in its original condition or was a repaint. In a few cases we got it wrong. Insofar as time was short and there was nobody around to ask, we made our best judgment call. In my own view when one talks about \u201cunrestored\u201d the central criteria is paint and, secondarily, parts. Does the bike, in the main, retain the original finish put on the bike at the time it was made and are the parts ones that could, conceivably, have been on the bike when the bike was assembled. 3. If the bike is deemed unrestored and the parts are \u201crelatively\u201d correct for the date given, then judging can proceed on other criteria. Does, for example, a bike identified as say 1975 which has a rear Campag derailleur dated Pat. 74 or 75 have its original derailleur or a replacemen t (for whatever reason)\u2026who can tell? We must assume if not its originality at least its correctness. But, on the other hand, if a bike dated, say 1962, has a Nuovo Record Derailleur and not a \u201cRecord\u201d model then, IMHO that is a point against it. 4. We viewed many beautiful unrestored bikes this year that contained a mishmash of parts that were clearly on the bike because it was, first and foremost, a rider and these parts worked. I see no problem in that except that if one enters a bike to be judged than one must realize that some sort of criteria must be applied and inappropriate parts is an obvious one and, again IMHO, one that merits deductions when comparing to others in the class that contain if not original, at least period appropriate parts. If one does not care at least to remove the modern oversize waterbottle from the cage than I have to ask why bother to enter the bike for judging in the first place. Display the bike\u2026absolutely, but to expect to be considered seriously for an award, absolutely not. 5. Peter\u2019s Post (pun intended) also made reference to the usefulness of including runners up in each category as a way of encouraging more participants and giving them incentive for next time. I am in full agreement with that suggestion.
I am also in favor of retaining a revamped, more objective, judging process. Judging improves the breed while the \u201cI\u2019m ok, your ok\u201d perspective leads to mediocrity. Let the chips fall.
Edward Albert Chappaqua, New York, U.S.A.
>>> hmsachs@verizon.net 07/03/08 7:10 AM >>>
Peter Weigle (I think it was my esteemed friend Peter) suggested that
each owner in the Cirque show declare whether his bike is "original"
vs.
"restored," to make judging easier. Now, I have enormous respect for
Peter, and great love for the bike, his own ride, that he consented to
sell me several years ago. But, I like vigorous discussion too, so
let's
stir the pot.
At first blush, this cut makes sense for production bikes, say a Raleigh
Pro, shipped with a full ensemble of parts. Is the finish original, and are the parts the ones it came with? But, all the parts? Can't I change "wear" parts, like chain, cogs, tires, brake lever hoods? Is it still "original" if I change the left crank for a matching one, because the original snapped? So, I'd devilishly suggest that there's some grey in this, too.
But wait, it gets better: What about a custom, that was bought from a builder or shop as a frameset and built up? Does "original" mean that it has the parts it was first ridden with, or only that the frame finish is original? Take my '73 Hetchins, which probably was built up at Cupertino. It came with a Suntour "backwards" FD that doesn't match up with the frame braze-ons, and required a kludge fit to work. Doesn't sound right, eh, not to fix that original build error. Done. Am I allowed to add a "demultiplicator" to mate the barcons to the proper RD?
So, I guess we're converging, by reducing the alternatives to absurdity (like we were mathemagicians), to an understanding that "original" refers to frame finish. So, I have one other Theological Question for my beloved brothers and sisters of the road: Is my Peter Weigle "original?" It wears the paint that it had when I bought it ~2005, as the first buyer of the bike, paint that Peter did. But, it's at least its third painting. The first was by Betsy Weigle, as a show bike in the early '80s. Since then, it's had a new brake bridge, other changes, and been repainted twice by Peter. Is it "original?" Certainly not "restored," since that brake bridge wasn't available when it was built originally...
Having (too) cleverly shown that classifications are helpful but that they tend not to cover every case, I can now sign off. I confess that I once commited taxonomy, and even helped "author" a new species of long-dead microfossil... :-)
harvey sachs
mcLean va