>What you don't realize is that, one, most of the factory paint jobs
>were pretty good overall, except for the detail trim paint. When new
>many of these bikes were very beautiful and if waxed and cared for
>like a good car from the beginning could easily look like a show
>bike. Considering the volume of bikes made and the factory
>environment, Id say they were pretty good.
Also consider the experience the original makers had. If you mask Cinelli lugs, day in and day out, you get very good at it. Sure, it won't be perfect, but the problem for a good restorer is to recapture the "great skill/little time spent" look, rather than make it look like "mediocre skill/lots of time spent." Believe me, the two look very different.
I think high-end production frames usually had good cosmetics, as they had to sell against a lot of other bikes in the shop. Some customs, especially French ones, had paint that may have been a bit less smooth at times, but then, you ordered the bike without seeing it... The paint wasn't bad, but might have some orange peel if you look at it under the right light.
I have examined four Cinellis up very close (not all mine). Two were original, two repainted. The first repainted one (wrong color, copper-plated lugs) may have been the best paint job of them all, but it is too long ago to be sure. Then come the two originals, which really aren't bad. The paint is thin, yet smooth and even. The lug masking is very good. The "high-end" restoration is the worst of them all, with relatively thick paint and poor lug masking. On the headlugs, the paint stops a millimeter before the lug, so you have chrome showing on the top and down tubes. And a millimeter is noticeable!
I think a bigger issue is trying to match the look of the old paints. They were less "syrupy," less glossy, but looked thinner, barely covering the metal underneath.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
2116 Western Ave.
Seattle WA 98121
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com