Mago

I can feel the need to leave the original, as as a classic aficionado I would say that you can refresh a paint job and markings so long as you keep it faithful to the original. For example, if you have a Plymouth Fury in Autumn Red, and need to fix a dent, scrape, or other damage to painted parts, you would match it in Autumn Red.

If you fill a ding and repaint in the same shade, did you refresh the bike or did you ruin the collector's value? Depends on the buyer. I'm an end-user of bikes - I don't resale unless absolutely necessary, so I'll keep to the original tone, but update with flake and shimmer and metals to suit to taste.

iab

The 3-year-old would get a huge whoopin'!!! Kidding, accidents happen, just like the stone coming up off the road and chipping the paint.

You may have misinterpreted my previous statements. I don't want to halt the process, a bike should be ridden and then it will age. If I had that Gloria, be cetain I would ride it and the condition would get worse. Although I would probably store the existing rims and put on some new Ghisallos (I don't want to die with those old rims failing). I just don't see any point to stop or reverse the aging process.

iab

You would be surprised at the amount of work and money people are beginning to do to keep things original. I worked in a car restoration shop 15 years ago. If a car came in with a dent, we would pound it out, put it on the English wheel and touch-up the paint. Now, they have developed new techniques to fix the dent but absolutely not add paint. Generally, it takes them twice as long for the same repair. It is original only once.

As to the value thing, original will always be more valuable and desirable than restored. How bad the condition must be for things to even out is obviously hard to determine but for the Gloria it is a no brainer. Do anything to it you will be out the cost of the restoration and the value will decrease, your pocket book will feel it twice.

tjspiel

This is why it's seems so arbitrary to me. A dent can be fixed, but the paint must not be touched, -kind of silly. Especially when it comes to bikes, a bike that lasts as long as the Gloria was probably stored somewhere and damage to it's finish probably came as much from disuse as much as use.

If you store a bike out in the sun, its finish will fade. If you touch it up, it'll look better. Either way the finish is being altered. I'm not sure why the fading is embraced while the touchup is scorned. Both are part of a bike's history.

iab

A dent affects functionality (structure, aerodynamics), paint does not.

The sun fading paint is inevitable, a repaint is not.

tjspiel

Ok, let's be honest here ;-) Dents, unless really serious, are usually repaired for cosmetic reasons and little consideration is given to the aerodynamics. For that matter, a chip in the paint affects the aerodynamics.

Here's my theory on why messing with the paint is a no-no: It's because you can usually tell.

Let's say you've got some scrapes on a brake lever. You find an exact replacement in better cosmetic condition and put it on. I'm assuming that's not as bad as repainting. But why? The scratches on the lever are no less cosmetic than the scratches in the paint. They're also part of the history of the bike.


The only bike I ever recall applying paint to is my old Huffy "Cheetah Slick" from 35 years ago. The black racing stripe on the front fender was wearing off in places. So, with my bottle of black Testor's paint and a small brush I did my best to fix it up.

If anything, to me little dots of paint like that add more value. They were left there by someone who once owned the bike and cared enough about it to put them there.

monogodo

I got mine at Home Depot ($9). They're also available at The Container Store ($11.99)

iab

I restored vintage race cars and a dent could affect aerodynamics at 150 mph but you are mostly correct asserting the majority of dents are cosmetic. You are also correct about the paint, unless it is from the same batch, you can never get paint to match and it is easy to spot a respray. Even if you have the original paint, it does have a shelf life and you have the fading issues as you mentioned.

I also wouldn't mind those little dots applied long ago but at some point, if too many dots are added, you no longer have the original. It is a lot like porn, I can't define when something becomes unoriginal but I know it when I see it.

fallsjohn

Lotek asked a good question - why wouldn't you want to ride a classic bike? I know there was a thread on this before but - are new road bikes so much more technologically advanced that if I hopped on the new $8,000 Specialized, 14 pounder that my co-worker owns, would I be spoiled and never hop on my World Sport again? Compared to the bike of my youth, a Varsity that I'm sure weighed over 40 pounds, my cromoly framed World Sport with indexed shifters seems very advanced. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

USAZorro

Don't be so sure. I test rode a Cannondale system 6 a little over a year ago. It was crazy light (under 16 pounds I'm pretty sure), and quite fast, but I got a bit more chatter than I am used to. It was nice, but I'm not a racer, and I have vintage bikes that I prefer taking on group rides. Of course the big price tag also was going against the Cannondale.

sekaijin

From the perspective of a rider, not a collector, I agree with this. The 1978 step-thru Raleigh Sports I just picked up for my wife has those "dots of paint" on it, which says to me that the prior owner loved it and took care of it.

Then again from a collector's perspective, I can see how "it's only original once" and unretouched is better.

But I'm not such a purist with my vintage road bike. I keep it pretty much period-correct if not truly original. When I wanted a saddle and gearing that fit me better, I swapped out the saddle and chainrings for approximately period-correct (as best I could tell) used replacements. The BB is next (triple to double), and maybe the freewheel. I also got near-match paint custom mixed and added the many little "dots of paint" needed. It's a rider and my goal is to make it fit my riding, and make it beautiful, while keeping the vintage integrity of its build.

Since the bike came to me repainted and with repaired frame damage, I figure its collectability/resale value is blown anyway. That is liberating, it helps me feel like the bike is for me and I can change it guilt-free.

When I do get comments on the bike, it's because it looks like a well-kept period piece and not another old steel knockabout on the road. This may be superficial, but I like knowing my bike is distinctive in a way that won't go out of style. I won't need to buy another $X,000 bike every few years to keep up with fashion and technology.

And then I like showing that my bike and I can keep pace with the group on their modern bikes.

John E

My situation with Capo #1 is remarkably similar.

sekaijin

Looks nice and looks like my size ... I'd like to take it for a ride!

moki

to return to the original question, i think vintage bikes should always go to a better home. If a bike is mouldering away in a damp basement, it deserves to be rescued, even if it's not going to get ridden.

All of my bikes are riders, but I have a coupla frames that I'm saving for the right person. I'm probably never going to build them up nicely, and I'll certainly never get much use out of them, as they're not my size. That said, I got them cheap from a motivated seller, and I don't feel bad about hanging them in my dry basement. I'm confident that someone will come along who will want these frames, build em up right, and take care of them.

dbarnblatt@usa.

Interesting that this mentality does not seem to work in car restoration. I see no difference. I have a friend that restored a 1962 Ferrari 250 SWB back to original factory specifications... right down to paint, bolts, interior, engine, etc. etc. 18 Months later the car is winning awards. He did it right... the badges are original, engine, original reproduction period Pirelli tires. The paint is new though... he even has an original decal in the window for a 1970 registration certificate.

Now a 250 unrestored in original condition might fetch more on the market... but not much more... same goes with bicycles. If you have a classic... do your research and do the job right. Things can be done properly. It's not a black or white issue. Repaint a frame and put the parts back on... WTH is the big deal.

Your thought that things change with time is true... new tires, brake pads, part replacement, overahaul, new paint. It is all part of the history... you are not screwing anything up by repainting/restoring... get over it.

Mos6502

When it needs a repaint, repaint it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. "When" is all up to you to decide. I don't mind some fading or scratches. Generally, unless the paint is abominable, what if any increase in value you might get from repainting is going to be negated by the cost of the painting.

As for hanging on the wall - generally I would disagree - but some bikes are really better off on display than being ridden. Examples might be an early Safety bicycle - they are prone to frame damage and distortion if ridden (not to mention wooden wheels, etc.) or perhaps you have an original Viscount with the death fork, and you don't want to sacrifice originality for ride ability - makes a neat display piece. Other examples might be bikes with impossible to source tire sizes, or missing bits but still of interest enough to preserve.

iab

Well thank you for the personal attack.

As I said in my posts, I tend to be in the minority but I am certain as time goes forward the better than original restoration that is popular now will be replaced and people will value the car/bike more by keeping it original. It is most definately true in the art and antique world and has started with cars and eventually will be true about bikes. The NY Times wrote a nice article about this a while back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/au...in&oref=slogin

My question is, what is the difference between a ground-up resoration starting from bare metal and making a reproduction? Should there be any difference in the value? If I took the the registration plate off of a 250 that was completely totaled in a wreck, fabricated an exact replica and attached the registration plate, is it a Ferrari? When is a Cinelli a Cinelli? Cino never raised a brazing torch and his workers were pretty much anonymous. If I used the same materials and design and made one today, would it be a Cinelli? If I restore a Cinelli, how much has to be there for it to be a Cinelli? Just a bottom bracket? BB and seat cluster? Maybe I am only allowed to replace a dented top tube? Or maybe not?

If you bothered to read my other posts, the restoration shop I worked for 15 years ago has changed their practices about car restoration. Now, they preserve rather than restore. I am amazed at the pains they go through to keep cars original instead of, for example, forming a new piece of aluminum and patching it into the body. The owners they deal with are much more interested in preservation. If you don't think this is the trend, you are sadly mistaken.

It is still original only once.

dbarnblatt@usa.

Sorry It's seems I was responding to your aggressive tone earlier:

You bring up the question of where we draw the line... a 250 chassis plate is certainly not the heart of the car. Ferrari a few years ago started addressing this issue. According to Ferrari; to declair an original car from the factory it has to have the complete original chassis and matching engine. But it REALLY all means nothing. Because the "value" is totally within the exchange between buyer and seller. Pebble Beach has also clamped down on original/repro/fabricated elements... but these cars are getting older and older and part do not exist at all for them... so what do you do? They need to work; be driven and raced... parts are going to break, they are going to be driven into a barrier at Laguna-Seca.... repairs and maintenence will need to be done, etc. etc.

I can't scoff at a well thought out, well plannned, repectful "restoration" or "preservation." Where can the line be drawn between those two words? So to keep a car or bicycle in working order so it can be used and operated as an example of a bygone era... do what needs ot be done. I'd rather see a 250 SWB with a new fender going balls out at laguna seca than the same with a nice patina sitting in a museum somewhere...

iab

You're right, my use of BS was a bit strong, but I am tired of that cliche. The only reason to repaint is because you don't like the existing paint. Not that there is anything wrong with that . As soon as you repaint though, immediately you are left to wonder, what was it originally like? I prefer not to wonder.

You're also right about the fine line between preservation restoration. In the art world, they argue about what level of cleaning is OK. You probably remember the controversy about cleaning the Sistine Chapel. I think it is the same with preservation/restoration. I just happen to lean a lot one way.

Again I agree with you about the value being between the buyer and seller. But as I wrote before, the pendulum is swinging towards original and away from the 100 point restoration.

Where I will disagree though is about your thoughts on owner mentality. Owners who spend a lot on the 100 point restoration for Pebble Beach, or any extensive restoration are the ones who never drive the car and trailer it from event to event. God forbid if they get a rock chip on the rear quarter panel. It is the owners of original cars who will put them on the road and on the track. This is true in my experience as someone who has worked on dozens of vintage racers and who has gone to Road America 2-3 times a year for the last 25 years to watch (and sometimes participate in my younger years) vintage car racing. BTW, Road America = the best track food in the country.

roseskunk

most paintings that you see in museums have been "restored", sometimes over-painted so much as to hide almost all the original paint. michelangelo's pieta has been restored several times. and i think that's the correct thing to do. it's about the artist's intention for the piece, and were michelangelo here today i think he would have agreed that it needed to be made right, though that's pretty arrogant of me to make that assumption.

imo, if i owned the gloria or something like it, she'd get a coat of cleaner wax and i'd clean the chrome and that would be it. maybe period correct tape. new tyres? new tubes? well, if you're going to ride her... and of course the gloria is in fine shape, but what if she weren't? what if one of the tubes were mangled? spokes missing? even original, i think most folks would try to fix that... yeah, a matter of degrees.

i think there's a difference between a little make-up and plastic surgery. it's one thing to comb your hair or get a haircut, it's another to wear a wig. even if plastic surgery weren't so obvious i'd be opposed to it. thank god my grandmother didn't try to get rid of her wrinkles. thank god she didn't have tattoos either, but that's another matter.

i don't have the cash nor the knowledge to own expensive bikes. but my raleigh international is at the lbs right now for a nitto bar, different peddles and clinchers. i'll keep the old stuff in case someone someday wants a period correct piece. but i want to ride her and for her to work for me, i need to make some adjustments. but she's not a ten grand museum piece either. my sports all have alloy rims or soon will, because they'll be better bikes for it. but then again, most folks look down on those wonderful bikes, so few people care. i think things that are well-worn can be wonderful and should never be repaired or restored; the worn stone or wood floor, the old school desk with kids names written in them. my old concord is going to get a repaint soon, but then again, it never was a classic and i just won't ride her the way she is. but maybe paint is like combing her hair, or a little make-up; she'll look better for it, and i'll be proud to be out on the road with her again...

dbarnblatt@usa.

This is where we agree... I can't stand the fact that a 100 pointer never gets to see the road or track. My only agument is that if a car or bike needs a new fender or fabricated drivetrain component to race around the track then do it so the thing can be used the way it should. I also have the same problem with guys who hang bikes on their wall like some sort of work of art. Now if the bike is fragile and cannot be ridden then I guess that's OK, but it still should be taken out every once and a while... but hanging on a wall and never ridden? What is up with that?

Blue Order

Paint has two purposes. The primary purpose is to prevent oxidation. The seconday purpose is decorative. As long as your paint is accomplishing the first objective, the secondary objective is a matter of taste. If you're putting your secondary objective first, you're missing the point.

OP: If you want to hang it as wall art, there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing says you can't change your mind. Nothing says you can't ride it once a month, or once a year. Nothing says you can't save it for an organized vintage bike ride. It's up to you.

iab

Amen brother.

And for the record, I am not a complete zealot. I may have the original parts to my bike but I don't ride it with them (the original rims are shot). And for safety reasons, I use stainless spokes which were not anywhere near original to the bike. I also don't begrudge the use of fuel cells in vintage racers, that is just common sense.

Six jours

One thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is the actual rarity of the bike in question. I think we could all agree that repainting Fausto Coppi's 1949 TdF bike would be an atrocity. It is the only one, and something important would be lost by repaiting it. Repainting my '82 Super Leggieri, OTOH, shouldn't offend anyone, as they made plenty and there are a bunch still floating around in original condition. Monetary value, of course, would be destroyed by refinishing Coppi's bike, and almost certainly enhanced by refinishing mine.

So I'd be hesitant to refinish the Gloria. They are few and far between, and once that original finish is gone it cannot be replaced. Again, something valuable and rare would be gone forever, and I think that's a mistake.

Of course, I also believe that bicycles are made for riding, and there are very few bicycles so rare and unreplaceable (think Coppi's TdF bike) that they should be preserved untouched. If you are absolutely dying to refinish the Gloria, I think the most "acceptable" way to do it would be to ride it until the finish is truly ruined and then commision a first-class restoration.

How's that for irrational?