Somethings should be left as they are.

XRCD011

XRCD011

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
All to often I see the rush to "restore" or "make better" and think it a shame to not just enjoy as is, dings, dents, faded paint is all part of a vehicles history. Make it safe and reliable to operate and leave alone, the old bike has earned its look with honestly. In contact with the seller and he will not sell to someone who wishes to "make it better".


https://www.milweb.net/webvert/a6715/103949
 
Claven2 said:
Sometimes rust and dirt is just rust and dirt and looks like neglect.

That bike looks neglected and dirty to my eye.
Click to expand...

It is also a 80 year old, original paint, barn find, matching numbers, WWII veteran, the rust and patina is earned fairly and is worn as a badge of honour within the owner community. As they say...........it was only new, once.
 
Last edited:
XRCD011 said:
It is also a 80 year old, original paint, barn find, matching numbers, WWII veteran, the rust and patina is earned fairly and is worn as a badge of honour within the owner community.
Click to expand...

The recent Rat Rod community seems to support your sentiment. Gingerly clean the metal and clear coat it with a matte or satin finish. That bike would be the TiT5!

rumble-with-the-warhawk--rat-rod-studios.jpg
 

Attachments

  • rumble-with-the-warhawk--rat-rod-studios.jpg
    rumble-with-the-warhawk--rat-rod-studios.jpg
    159.2 KB · Views: 413
trebor2880 said:
Restore it! Or put it in a museum.
Click to expand...

Go back to post three, clean, make safe to operate, correct any safety issues or concerns and by all means keep out of the hands of museums. No need to clear coat or monkey with the paint and "make better" because.......it was only new, once.
 
There's a difference between preservation, restoration, and neglect. Allowing an artefact to degrade to preserve its "originality" soon leaves you with nothing at all. Stabilization is key to preservation and restoration should be reserved for things past that point.
 
XRCD011 said:
Go back to post three, clean, make safe to operate, correct any safety issues or concerns and by all means keep out of the hands of museums. No need to clear coat or monkey with the paint and "make better" because.......it was only new, once.
Click to expand...

We'll have to respectfully disagree. To my eye, it's actively deteriorating for lack of preservative maintenance.
 
Preserve, don't restore.

Not everything has to be "eternal, shiny and chrome". This old lady has seen some sh!t and painting over her history is peeing all over that.

By the way, that website is an exceedingly dangerous place to send people with disposable income. I see a buncha sh!t I want and the only problem is the absence of several million Euro in my bank account.
 
Falconflyer said:
I think it's in good enough condition to leave as it is, not everything needs to look brand new. A lot of restorations make the car/bike/plane look better than original and that significantly reduces the value and historical significance.
Click to expand...

I have a 1981 Yamaha RD350LC that was built from the bits of 3 different bikes. I bought it because I wanted to ride it and modern upgrades make it work better and safer and ultimately more fun. My bike has modern brakes, later model forks (that look the same but aren't) upgraded shock, upgraded intake and dual digital exhaust gas sensors. I totally get it that my bike isn't historically valuable but then it never was going to be due to the original build. But it is mine and it is way more enjoyable to ride than a totally EOM stock 42 year old bike. For anyone who hasn't experienced early 80's motorcycle brakes, they SUCKED!!!!

There is room for 100% original examples and tastefully updated examples that look more or less like the original machine but are safer and work better. The former is for collecting and the latter is for experiencing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom