Well, I look at it like this. A racing device, car, bike, plane has a racing life and it does goes through changes. Then it becomes obsolete and might have an unloved phase. Some one finds it, falls in love, cleans it up and presents it as is. To me that is as original as that one can get. It has lived and this was its final visage when it was rolled off the paddock for the last time.
One team might order 10 racing devices, have a bad season, lose sponsorship, backs out of delivery of the last 3. The factory mothballs the last 3 and they sit unused for 30 years. That is original.
Another person might find it and want to do vintage racing so that person will bring the device back to life making the changes needed for safety and reliability but keeping with the spirit of the age when possible.
Yet another new owner may seek to relive the age and have the device redone from top to bottom new metal work new paint and his own livery just as if it was brand new. That could be original as well.
Stewart
Brooklyn NYC USA
On Jul 20, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Steve Birmingham wrote:
> A tough question, as there's varying levels of restoration and
> preservation.
>
> Even a Coppi bike in a museum wouldn't be strictly "original" since
> he or
> his mechanic would have changed
> parts for the next race. It may be "The bike" but concessions to its
> original use would have to be made.
>
> For production bikes and most custom bikes I think getting close to
> catalog
> spec is fine, and a repaint
> would be proper either in restored or in a class for modified bikes
> if the
> paint was changed from the original
> color -Or from an originally available color to make it simpler.
>
> But some actually raced bikes don't and can't fit those categories.
>
> The bike I'm bringing to the Lars show is a great example of that.
> Raced in
> a pretty major event.
> repainted for a sponsorship change, shifter moved for some reason.
> So which
> era does it get "restored" to?
> Then there's the matter of specially made and unavailable parts,
> which I've
> made.
> It's in "original" paint, after a fashion, and the actual original
> markings
> are under the paint and visible from the right angle. But NONE of
> the parts
> are original in any way.
>
> I call it reconstructed. There's probably a better word, but that's
> the best
> I've found so far.
>
> So another category.
>
> I have an idea about judging, but it's due for a post of its own
>
> Steve Birmingham
> Lowell, Massachusetts
> USA
>
>
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:35:46 -0700
> From: Thomas Adams <thomasthomasa@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [CR] Does restored= repainted? was Re: Ciclo Locomotiva -
> "sympathetic restoration"?
> To: <jswan@optonline.net>, Michael Allison <cyclo_one@verizon.net>
> Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Message-ID: <456045.68984.qm@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The problem seems to be that we are all choosing different words for
> a bike
> which has been altered from original.? Would the most useful
> division of
> vintage bikes for show judging be "original" and "not original'??
> And then
> pick a sympathetic word for the "not original" class, whether it would
> be?refurbished, restored renewed, repainted or recreated?? The task
> then is
> to decide what constitutes "original", and all bikes that aren't
> original go
> into the other class.? My suggested definition?would be?strict:? an
> original
> bike must have the original finish, no alterations to the frame?and
> have
> either the original parts or period correct replacement components.?
> Even a
> repaint by the original builder/painter takes a bike out of the
> original
> class.? ?
> ?
> I don't see any substantial utility in further subdividing the "not
> original" class based on whether the bike has been repainted,
> because any
> bike that has been changed structurally is almost always going to
> get a new
> paint job, if only to cover up the burned paint from the structural
> change
> or repair.? So the vast majority of bikes in this class would be
> repaints or
> at least severely touched up.?
> ?
> I suppose you could make a division for not original ?bikes with all
> period
> correct parts vs. bikes with some/all modern stuff, if you have a
> lot of
> bikes to judge.? And then perhaps another class for a bike with
> intact frame
> and original finish but some modern parts.? Does that cover
> everything?? But
> now we're up to 4 classes, which is probably too many for
> convenience.?
> ?
> Tom Adams
> Manhattan, Kansas, USA