List,
I would agree that rust quickly goes beyond any contribution to a well-aged patina, but I thought Bob's post was a very well-distilled summary of why deliberate loss of original finish amounts to needless further destruction.
I'm no metallurgist either. As I understand it, the production of rust requires both water and an ionic substance such as a salt, and the production of rust surely displaces such ionic contaminants away from the base metal. Only exposure to high levels of relative humidity can precipitate condensation (in the rust) sufficient to mobilize the original ionic contaminent inward, back toward the base metal, but of course such ionic compounds do also tend to increase the condensation effect. High relative humidity is the enemy.
I have yet to see a refinisher actually restore an original older finish of the type applied to some of the OLDER bikes. These finishes appear extremely hard and thin, with visual characteristics suggesting they may have been applied using a fine brush, then baked on. Is this possibly correct? Does anyone know if these presumeably lead-based finishes were baked on (to the temperature of molten lead) in order to melt the lead particles into a continuous layer of color-infused metal? From my experience they exhibit exceptionally high durability against both weathering and abrasion.
I'm looking here at my early-50's Christophe, and the finish doesn't resemble modern spray finishes one bit. I "conserved" it by using rubbing compound, which had seemingly no effect (beyond slight improvement to gloss and color) as compared to using same compound on modern, polymer-based finishes.
This bike is rough-as-a-cob (yes, damaged) but I wouldn't think of refinishing it. Nor would I install a single NEW spoke or polish a hub! It's beauty (and "credibility") lies in the utter consistency of it's deteriorated state, with no one complaining. As I have come to realize this bike's rarity, this doesn't change my opinion of any need to refinish it, unless someone could convince me that refinishing it would be a substantial and productive investment decision (and until I've had a chance to ride it a while longer!).
David Snyder Auburn, CA usa
Bob Hovey wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/18/08 3:36:05 PM, gholl@optonline.net writes:
>
>
>> >> You may be correct in suggesting that waxing
>> or oiling may seem to slow the destruction caused
>> by rust. But, in reality the process continues.
>>
>>
>
>
> The main point of my post was to suggest that this
> is precisely not the case, with the application of proper
> care. Rust is not a virus or disease, it is a chemical
> reaction that is slowed or accelerated by other factors
> besides it's proximity to existing rust, and there is more
> than ample evidence that the presence of compacted
> iron oxides can actually SLOW the process by limiting
> iron's access to oxygen and moisture. I don't know
> how much more clear or credible I can make this point
> since I am not a metalurgist... I have no statistical studies
> to show you, only my own experiences and those of (quite
> a few) others who have posted on this matter.
>
> I have only been collecting bikes for a decade or so,
> but allow me to relate a longer-running experience
> with my great-grandfather's planes and chisels which
> have been in my posession for 40 years. As you know,
> the nature of these tools precludes the use of paint on
> their working surfaces. They came into my hands with
> numerous rust spots, some of which I polished out, others
> I just left alone after removing all loose material. Since
> then I have kept them oiled and dry, but have not given
> them any greater care than the other tools in my
> possession. In the time I have had them, the rusted
> areas have not spread or deepened, and on those
> occasions when spots of fresh rust did appear, it was
> always appeared first on highly polished surfaces where
> there was no rust at all.
>
>>>Furthermore, painting doesn't erase all "originality"
> it's only a coating-and not one always put on by the
> builder himself.
>
>
> With all due respect, isn't that a specious justification?
> Whether the paint is subcontracted or not, we are talking
> about paint (and decals) that are original and of the period.
> Bugatti never built the bodies on his Royales either, does
> that make them less worthy of conservation than the
> drive train?
>
>
>>> I also agree that the damage we currently see on
> too many vintage bikes was due to former neglect-but
> I'm hoping that we here on CR do nothing here to
> perpetuate such continued neglect with false notions
> such as "patina," etc.
>
>
> I do understand your point ... I'm one of those who
> does not consider rust patina and I usually make an
> effort not to refer to it as such. My only purpose in
> advocating restraint (by halting the spread of rust
> rather than repainting the whole bike) is to prevent the
> removal of material that is irreplaceable. I have spent
> my entire life in the art field and am too familiar with
> the horrible damage that has been done by overzealous
> and premature restoration.
>
> Bob Hovey
> Columbus, GA USA
> http://bhovey.com/