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

(Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2004)

Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:02:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: <gholl@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
In-reply-to: <BAY123-W7E92253BA9C2300B5BB5ED1980@phx.gbl>
To: Stephen James <sj52@hotmail.com>
References: <005201c8dd3b$feefda80$6701a8c0@gatewaygpcezcz>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Stephan: You're right to inquire. In fact these terms have subtle semantic differences. A lot of undefined, or poorly defined jargon is applied to vintage bikes, e.g. "NOS", and even more amusing the latest, currently applied to a bike on eBay, "unadulterated"! Sooner or later, the vintage bike community, especially the movers, shakers, and vintage bike exhibition judges, will have to come to a consensus regarding a system of classification of bike condition and authenticity. This is most important when vintage bikes are exhibited to the public and when a bike is sold. The condition and authenticity of most vintage bikes is not impossible to ascertain-it may be difficult at times, but a great reservoir of honest talent is available. I believe that bikes shown at exhibition should be honestly represented, in writing, by the exhibitor, listing any and all modifications made to the bike, and, then all bikes should be vetted by a committee before they are shown to the public. An honest seller should do the same. It's a question of honesty and of the integrity of the hobby. I think a lot of input from the large number of knowledgeable collectors here on CR is needed on this critical topic.
George
George Hollenberg, MD


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen James"
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:57:00 -0000
Subject: RE: [CR]Comment on Cirque bike classification: "original" v. "restored"
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


>
> I am curious why the distinction is between "original" and
> "restored", ra
> ther than "restored" and "unrestored", for example.
>
> What, incidentally, would be the groups' idea of criteria for
> restoration. Is repainting too much?
>
> Steve James
> Bx., NY> From: cnighbor1@comcast.net> To:
> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:38:32 -
> 0700> Subject: [CR]Comment on Cirque bik
> e classification: "original" v. "restored"> > To make judging
> easier for Ci
> rque bike classification: "original" vs.. > "restored" why not
> do this, h
> ave entries state which class they are > completing in. Than for
> original c
> lassification entries have owner on a > standard Cirque provided
> form list
> the original parts and frame. > Allowing for comments to be
> included. Than
> judge it using form checking > to see if it meets form after
> first reviewin
> g form for correctness. For > restored judge it is has it is
> right now.> Ju
> st a thought> > Charles Nighbor> Walnut Creek, CA> PS I always
> when enter
> ing a bicycle judging contest include a water > bottle with
> fresh flowers i
> n it. And match or contrast flower color to > bicycle color.
> Judges can't r
> esist giving a few more points.> > > > --- StripMime Report --
> processed MI
> ME parts ---> multipart/alternative> text/plain (text body --
> kept)> text/h
> tml> ---> _______________________________________________>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary!
> http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_feb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>

George Hollenberg MD
CT, USA