"Oily rag" restoration
 

My brother, who is an old car guy, just pointed me to this site:

Philosophy | Oily Rag

I'm not sure how active the site is, but I like their pro-patina philosophy. Like everyone else in the world, I tend to feel that people who agree with me obviously know what they're talking about.

They cover motorcycles, which are of course a highly specialized type of bicycles. No mention of bicycles in general, though.

As-is, cleaned, cleaned and regreased, light maintenance, full maintenance, lightly repaired, fully repaired, paint-touch-up, partially repainted, fully repainted.

It's a long continuum. My bikes are very good models, but not unusually rare or historic. I try to get the bike in better than new condition.

True enough--life is lived on the slippery slope. Not sure what the oily rag rules are, or if there are rules. I have a nice Gitane TdF frame I'm getting ready to work on that has seriously worn and faded paint and bad decals. No problem there, but can I give it a phosphoric acid bath to remove the small amounts of surface rust and some minor freckling of the chrome? Or is that rust part of the deal?

Darned if I know. But I'm all in favor of any philosophy that makes my life easier.

I have started taking the leave the rust philosophy on bikes I pick up for myself now. I figure if they haven't failed in the 40 years before me, what are the chances they fail on me? Besides if they do fail on me, I can brag that my great cycling power broke a frame.

I just can't accept the rust preservation approach. It is too active an element to the whole patina thing. I think it is better to at least stop it, if not remove it. JMHO.

This dude abides.

After repainted, add full complement of braze-ons and repainted.

Heck, in for a penny, in for a pound.

I like the original finish, parts, and such. But I don't mind polishing off the surface rust. But I also I think whatever the bike owner does with his/her bike... is OK with me. The "proper" way to preserve historical bicycles isn't likely to remain static. And plenty of bikes have made it into private collections and Bicycle Museums.

In the past I was a regular on the CABE forum. Their philosophy is that it is only original once. So if the paint is decent, leave it alone. If the paint is basically gone, then paint it. On my 1924 Mead Ranger the paint was quite good so I left it. However, to me dirt & rust were not original so I went over it with WD-40 & 0000 steel wool & then wax & Evapo-Rust (sp?) on the small bits.

Rust is a cancer. If it isn't removed or neutralized it will continue to degrade the integrity of the afflicted surface.

I pretty much agree with this, shoot I am having a hard time deciding whether to paint the bike I have that has lost all its decals and paint is shot. That one and the Raleigh Clubman that I obtained repainted are the only two I am ever considering. I have not painted anything vintage to this date.

Often the paint looks like crap until it is polished. Always test it before stripping. There are exceptions:
[IMG]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/...51fcbf3c_b.jpgP1000916, on Flickr[/IMG]

I don't have anything close to a museum bike and never will, but I like the museum mentality of preservation. Making an old bike look new isn't my usual approach, but I do like to forestall future damage from rust.