Preference: Original or Restored?

[creaky]

My bikes speak for my preferences...they are all showing original paint and fixtures....however....examples that have been brought back to original showroom look and luster do catch my eye.

[anotherguy]

Both of these are OEM aside form some internal mods and the later model forks on the YZ. The RZ is sportin' a set of R1 monobloc front calipers/Brembo M/C now too. Too goddamned fast for the stockers.

[ColonelDibsies]

What is worth patina? Is my old dime a dozen kz worth keeping its crapping paint? Or a 1995 nighthawk. If its a nice bike in nice shape than keep it. But if its a cheap bike or a common bike, do whatever you want. It's your ride, do what you want. I like seeing custom rides based on old ujms

[ricochetrider]

Originally Posted by ColonelDibsies

What is worth patina? Is my old dime a dozen kz worth keeping its crapping paint? Or a 1995 nighthawk. If its a nice bike in nice shape than keep it. But if its a cheap bike or a common bike, do whatever you want. It's your ride, do what you want. I like seeing custom rides based on old ujms

Good point. Outside of certain realms, I think you really have to consider each bike within its own history (or yours with it), & individual set of possibilities.
1995 Nighthawk? That doesn't even qualify for this discussion!
A 70s or 80s Jap bike? It would depend very much on the bike and its condition. I personally have about zero love for these bikes, so I could really give a hoot either way.
Of course others' opinions will vary- but that's what this is about anyway- peoples opinions and preferences.

Cheers.

[oldroadie]

I have one of each so I'd say my preference is both. This 64 was found with a load of patina, including wrinkled paint from a leaking tank. An unpainted eBay tank led me down the painting path and this modified, well running bike was the result:



I think of this 64Triumph as a resto-rized bike. Modern parts hidden inside with mostly period correct parts outside. Then there's this one, bought as a non-running specimen and adapted to suit. 1972 Patina galore and purpose built not to be shiny:



Take your pick. Both are always going to be works in progress. I like museum pieces, too. And rat bikes....

[Sox Fan]

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

Somewhere in-between the over-restored bikes and the over-patina'd bikes are the unmolested, well-cared for machines which have been sensibly maintained and ridden all their lives. They are the bikes I admire the most.

This to me is the sweet spot. A well cared for original machine that looks perfect from maybe 15-20 feet away, is complete and has always been maintained and used regularly. My R90 was purchased like this. An original bike that has required nothing but gas and maintenance in the two years I have owned it. I am a perfectionist so at times I am tempted to do a full restoration but have come to appreciate original machines. I just think it is very cool to look at the tank and know a talented German hand painted those exact pinstripes in October 1975. The condition and reliability of the bike in original condition speaks to the quality of the machine.

To each his own though.

[hopskipjump]

New to me is a very low mileage Moto Guzzi LeMans 850 with 10k on the clock-

Notorious for crummy frame paint and even though it was indoors in California with its second owner for 32 of its years, there is rust on the frame and what appears to be battery acid leakage which caused some of the frame to "corrode". The engine and transmission castings are unevenly oxidized....

I believe that patina, to be nice has to be evenly distributed- not a shiny this next to a dull that- Also, scratches and rust and dents are not patina....
I also know that the unrestored perfect object is the most valuable, then comes the careful restoration that searches for the OEM parts and the hidden improvement parts- re-dos that correct poor engineering or manufacturing but that are very hard to detect....

I would post pics but I do not know how...

[Sox Fan]

Originally Posted by hopskipjump

Also, scratches and rust and dents are not patina....

..

Agreed. An obvious but useful distinction. A poorly maintained but original motorbike does nothing for me.

[Meriden]

Restoration is more than just returning a vehicle to original condition (or worse.) I've been thinking about my eldery Jaguar and this thread. The car was a lucky find with just a tad bit of teardrop rust at the bottom of the windshield, an almost impossible level of condition for an unrestored British car of the era. I'll be having a restoration paint job done to the car: strip all the moulding and chrome off, fix all the dings and bits of rust, clean, prime and repaint paint all the metal in the orignial Jaguar Claret. It'll end up costing almost as much as the car and take months for a good shop to complete. Without it, this car will not survive.

Sometimes a restoration is more than the vanity of the owner, but a step toward long term preservation. It's funny, if we rebuild an engine one year, fix the dents and then have to refresh the paint another, fix the shocks and brakes a third, we call it maintenance. If we do all that at once because the vehicle needs it, we call it a restoration. How one is a good thing and another is a bad thing is beyond me.

"Cool ol' Guzzi. Why don't you fix that rusty tank and ride it?"
"Na, I'm trying to keep it as original as possible."

m

[ttpete]

I have unpacked from original factory boxes many NOS British fuel tanks, fenders, and sheet metal pieces, and the original paint has nowhere near the quality that exists on the "restored" examples of the same bikes that I've seen. This includes my '67 Triumph. Same goes for cars. It's practically impossible to duplicate original finishes today, given the paints now available.

[bk brkr baker]

How does this hit you ?

To me it's about the worst case scenario , faux patina. I saw this and it just struck me as wrong , I mean if you have real aged look to preserve that's one thing . This on the other hand seems to be bowing to fashion as the times dictate.And they did this to a true Icon , a Merkel !
At least they left the motor mostly alone.
Can't you hear the owner telling his painter, "Make it look old. Like it was just pulled out of a barn." Fail
In the seventies you'd see old bikes far overly restored to the point their history was polished off, then chromed over.
A well restored bike is cleaned up and painted to the standard of the day it was produced.

[Sox Fan]

[QUOTE=bk brkr baker;20363868]

How does this hit you ?

That's ridiculous.

[Merfman]

Originally Posted by Sox Fan

This to me is the sweet spot. A well cared for original machine that looks perfect from maybe 15-20 feet away, is complete and has always been maintained and used regularly. My R90 was purchased like this. An original bike that has required nothing but gas and maintenance in the two years I have owned it. I am a perfectionist so at times I am tempted to do a full restoration but have come to appreciate original machines. I just think it is very cool to look at the tank and know a talented German hand painted those exact pinstripes in October 1975. The condition and reliability of the bike in original condition speaks to the quality of the machine.

To each his own though.

Is there a market for a bike that's been repaired to a level that it appears as a well kept survivor?

[darmst6829]

[QUOTE=Sox Fan;20368228]

Originally Posted by bk brkr baker

How does this hit you ?

That's ridiculous.

The most charitable thing I can say is that at least it will be an easy restoration for the next guy…..

Dave

[hopskipjump]

Originally Posted by Merfman

Is there a market for a bike that's been repaired to a level that it appears as a well kept survivor?

Give an example!