So does original mean 1)original as produced by the factory or
workshop, or 2)original as originally ridden? I suspect that for
original racing bikes we'd prefer the latter especially because we
reverence the choices and adaptations of racers of yore. Consider how
we pore over old photos to see how a racer's bike had tape on the
leverbodies, or lever tips. Those are riding/use choices not factory
choices, and in cases like these post-factory choices are more
interesting to us than the factory ones.
>From my observation, other than old racers' bikes we tend to mean the
former--we tend to want an original lightweight to be identical to
factory spec. Our category "period correct" , if I understand it
correctly, is a reconstructed version of this "original as produced by
the factory" category.
For an example that wouldn't fit either category, consider the 1976 Gitane race bike (531db throuought, Huret, stronglight, Normandy, Hutchinson tubulars) I bought as a teen-ager and rode all "orginal" for a short time. Within the year I was racing it with a N.Tipo wheelset with Clement tubulars, and about a year later I had it repainted and added shift lever braze-ons and top of bb cable guides. That's how it was originally ridden/raced but it's way out of factory spec. My status as a teenage racer doesn't (in my opinion and probably yours) confer very much interest in it as a racers' bike--my choices there tell us only a little about what late 70s bike urchins were into if they didn't chase drillium and couldn't afford much Campagnolo. And those choices are not interesting in the same way that racers' taping choices in the 1960 Tour peloton are interesting. But on the other hand the altered bike seems original as ridden, more "original" in a certain sense, than if I'd left it in the box untouched for the last 32 years.
Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah, USA
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Stephen James <sj52@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 restorati
> on. 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> ---> _______________________________________________> Classicrendezvou
> s mailing list> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> http://www.bikelist.org/
> lman/listinfo/classicrendezvous