It seems to me that the problem lies in the difficulty of merging (or confu sing) the principles of archeology with (certain) principles of antique col lecting. The major problem with that, in my opinion, is that bicycles have a utilitarian function. I can't imagine an archaeologist who wouldn't prefer to find a "working" example of any ancient object. He or she might prefer to find one that had actually been used, true. An antique collec tor, however, is more concerned with the appearance of the object than its ability to function.
At any rate, either point of view eventually leads to the question of wha t we should do with the objects in our custody. I agree with George and ot hers who argue that allowing continued degradation is not good custodianshi p. Of course, it's the prerogative of the owner. Yet, the steel can o utlast many generations of owners; and I think there are many who wish th at earlier owners had taken better care of their machines.
I think a good bicycle museum would have examples of historical bicycles, ordinary bikes in "used" condition, and completely pristine examples of cycle artistry. Museums are interested in preserving items, however. In dividual collectors often have different motives. I think that more than o ne lister has suggested referring to the world of automobile collecting for systems of categorization. Perhaps, that might include principles and t erminology. The two worlds, in my mind, are quite similar.
Steve James
Bronx, New York, USA