There are 50 shades of gray in that vague, expectation-laden term "restored."
What constitutes "restored?" Many consider "restored" to be anything brought back to a "like new" state, thus, within that expectation is "repainted and rechromed." Yet, "restored"
could also apply to an all-original object that has been cleaned, polished, and removed of years of grime, yet still carries an otherwise untouched original finish and patina of a varying degree.
Would that object be "
restored" or "
refurbished?" As a personal preference, I prefer the latter in regards to the term and the non-destructive approach to originality, but I would hazard a guess that not everyone will agree with that. Plus there's the chances of a very rough outlier that
does warrant a repaint when all else simply can't bring it to a palatable state.
That said, here's a perfect example to throw the expectations of the term
restoration into a tailspin: This 1952 Raleigh Sports has been completely disassembled, straightened, polished, repacked, reassembled, and OA-bathed (parts only, not frame). The aim is obviously to get it to look it's absolute best, but it still carries patina - the rims especially - and the frameset isn't perfect either. Just the same, I'd argue that any attempt to reach originality with this same bike through a "complete restoration" (e.g., rechrome/repaint for absolute perfection) would entirely ruin it by virtue of achieving results that don't
look original.
So Is it "restored" or not?
BEFORE:
AFTER (in progress):
-Kurt