likebike23

I feel that there are absolutely bikes that should be preserved in their original state. The thing is, that number is probably a fraction of a percent of all the bikes built. The sad fact is that most people outside of our strange world don't care about bikes. What really makes me sick is knowing that every day there are tons of quality bikes being thrown in the trash. They won't even separate a bike from the metal pile at my town's transfer station, they almost immediately scoop them up in the front loader, damaging them as they drop them into the dumpster. I've even called the scrap company they use to see if they would sell the bikes that come in from the dumpster and they said no. It isn't even worth it to them to separate and sell a nice bike for hundreds of times the value in scrap. So, is it really that big a deal if a couple bikes get painted or drewed? The way I see it, at least somebody is getting some use and enjoyment from something that most people would just trash.

SkyDog75

Good point. Individually, they don't seem particularly important to preserve because of their ubiquity, but collectively they are significant. Or at least they're representative of the bike boom, a significant event in cycling history.

Bandera

Angrily/reluctantly built by disaffected industrial union workers to an indifferent quality standard after a hearty dejeuner replete w/ vin rouge and Marxist sloganeering the Peugeot UO-8 of the "Significant" bike boom was casually thrust into sagging shipping cartons suitable for hand card delivery to the adjacent arrondissements where it arrived battered, scratched and often missing it's parts box on our shores. Assembly was a miserable prolonged purgatory unequaled by even a Raleigh Sprite.

Rose tinted glasses should not deter accurate evaluation of what was miserable quality foist on the American consumer by the Euro factories who were promptly and deservedly put out of business by quality Japanese production which understood the International supply chain, post WWII manufacturing, quality control and assurance in a few years. Bless you Mr. Deming,

That being said, is an old Azuki, Nishiki, Sekine, Schwinn Approved or it's ilk worthy of some special consideration of OEM preservation status?

No more than A Datsun 210, which is Not at All.

-Bandera

thenomad

here here!

SkyDog75

Speaking of kids, I'm actually building up an '81 Fuji SJ-10 for my daughter ...and I *gasp* just had the beat-up old paint sandblasted off and replaced with powder coat. And I'm replacing the steel 26" x 1 1/4" wheels with alloy 650c's. And the infant-sized narrow handlebars and turkey levers have to go. So much for originality. But my daughter's gonna love it a whole lot more this way.

Sorta like with my own UO-8, I don't seem to get too nostalgic for low quality parts that detract from enjoying the bike.

jimmuller 

Having a rough day, are you?

Bandera

Not at all, but my memory is still quite accurate after all these years.

I assume that you never had to drag a Peugeot out of a sodden sagging shipping container, search for it's incomplete parts box, marvel at how front wheels could be haphazardly tied to do both maximum damage to the frame's paint and be bent in transport while wondering how crank cotters could be both un-seated and stripped.

That was the reality of Peugeot quality during the bike boom in our shop where I was responsible for their (lengthy miserable) assembly.
It was what it was, lousy at best even by lax Euro standards, soon to be deep sixed by the Japanese.

Holding up a UO-8 as some exemplar of "significant" status of the boom years makes me laugh/cringe, might as well choose Vista instead.......
If one has a boom era Peugeot that functions today thank a contentious shop employee back when, you can bet they don't ride one now and never did.

To the OP's point: an OEM UO-8 deserves the same conservation as a Renault Le Car: none at all.

-Bandera

busdriver1959

The key words are "historically significant". Problem is, we can't even agree on what that means.
I'm beginning to really dislike the word "patina" though. Overused. To me, patina is limited to normal wear that just happens over time. Scratches and scrapes that indicate an uncaring attitude, I call abuse. I see no need to try to preserve abuse. Wrapping a lock around the seat post and then letting it bang into the paint or leaning the toptube against a concrete post are typical examples of abuse that I have no desire to preserve.
I don't really care that much about paint anyway. The heart and soul of the bike is the frame itself. The only reason the paint is there is to keep the steel from rusting. You can repaint a bike a dozen times and it will still fit the same and ride the same.
Drewing brazeons isn't as irreversible as we like to think here. As long as the tube isn't ruined with the angle grinder, it's easy to replace a shifter boss or cable guide. New dropouts are a little tougher.

bikingshearer 

This holds true for cockroaches, too.

Come to think of it, there was a time when UO-8s were about as common as cockroaches, and almost as desirable.

gaucho777 

I don't agree with the OU-8 disparagement. An OEM Peugeot has it's faults (steel wheels, delrin derailleurs/shifters), but most of these can be easily remedied. A bike's soul is in the frame, a UE-8 still has good bones. @Bandersa you say an OEM Nishiki is worth preserving but not an OU-8. With a few upgrades, I prefer the ride of my '74 UE-8 to my OEM '74 Nishiki Competition. I know I've posted photos of these bikes in the past, but these two bikes actually serve a nice set of on-topic of examples of two differing approaches to preservation vs. restoration. The UE-8 was used but not abused and had minimal rust damage. I bought it for less than $70 and then spent another ~$225 on period-appropriate upgrades (tubular wheels, chainguard, RD, shifters, saddle, lightly used Dugast tires). It's a wonderful all-purpose bike with a smooth, stable ride, not too heavy, and a certain je ne sais quoi. I'm not afraid to leave in the wild either. On the other hand, the Nishiki Competition had significant rust issues and needed (yes, needed) a repaint, as well as a lot of attention everywhere. I ended up repainting the Nishiki myself and spent many hours restoring it. Overall the Nishiki cost $80 plus another $200 to restore it (paint, decals, saddle, and normal consumables) plus many, many hours of effort. So, in the end, I have a similar financial investment in both the lowly, upgraded, patina'd U0-8 variant and the restored, seemingly-new Nishiki. The Nishiki may have more value on the resale market, but I prefer the ride of the UE-8 and have been contemplating selling the Nishiki Competition since it's the bike in my fleet I ride the least.









In my experience, the right approach to restoration/preservation/re-imagining is best made on a case-by-case basis.

gaucho777 

Another point of consideration: I recently saw a nice 80s De Rosa for sale on CL. The bike had a custom S&S coupler added so that one could travel with the bike. Yes, a grail bike for some was irreversibly altered. But what if you are a passionate cyclist who is fortunate to travel a lot and loves to explore unfamiliar areas of the world by bike. Maybe you normally ride a highfalutin carbon wonder bike at home but you can't add a S&S coupler to a monocoque carbon frame. You don't want to rely on some crappy hybrid rental bike in ****et. You want to ride a bike on vacation similar to what you are accustomed to riding at home. So who am I to say that adding a S&S coupler to a classic steel De Rosa is unforgivable?

peugeot mongrel

@randyjawa To the original post - I love the emotion you have aroused. I have enjoyed your site. I have a few questions to ponder and curious of your thoughts. Lets take this into the real world. I just posted Is this a Galmozzi ? and this is my multi part question.

1. If I strip this poor orphan and find proof of it's providence with a stamp by Galmozzi on the headtube. Is it good enough to spray it best I can and decal it with best decals I can get that are not really correct or

2. Is it only good enough (because of it's providence) if it is restored by a major player at $$$$$ serious dollars?

3. Would it be better to leave it alone and never know if it is a rather ikonic marquee and let it suffer it's future fate of deteriation?

4. If it can't be proven it was built by Galmozzi but it sure looks like it may have been what would be appropriate? Strip it, paint it, & decal it and it might be all not correct.

5. Let it rust because you stripped it trying to find out what it was and now you can't brand it because you can't prove what it really is.

hmmm.... I did make a comment to a curious poster that I thought it would be fine to ream out a brake hole on a really nice Mercian fork so it would accept a different brake. The only reservation I have with that advice is that if not touched up it might encourage rust.

desconhecido 

This is a toaster:



but, you can't make toast with it.

The rule is that the BMW toasters were only 1972. I have a 73 toaster, but it's not nearly the looker that the one in the photo is. That's a stunner.

desconhecido 

I'm not sure. Seems to me that they want old things to look like old things but function like new things.

Bandera

Neither is significant enough for any preservation status, they are Just Old Bikes:


Modify or fill dumpsters to your hearts' content, plenty more where those came from, but the Japanese machines were/are a clear step up in quality.

-Bandera

Road Fan

I like my UO-8 and i consider it a good rider. I'd like to get the same frame with better-condition original green paint, because I like the way it looks. But if I ever start commuting on it, I'll have to protect the frame.

rhm

Yeah. Those are the right questions.

There are many factors that contribute to the value of an old bike --regardless what kind of 'value' we're talking about:
--original components
--original finish
--original price point / quality
--desirability (however you want to define that)
--current utility (would anyone ride it today? If so, upgraded components may add value)

And so on. And among these factors we must also include identity. If you don't know what a bike is, its only value is in its utility. If a frame has been stripped of all its original components, original paint and graphics, and even its identity, it's hard to argue there's anything left to preserve. So it's no longer a question of preservation, but of restoration. By research you may retrieve its identity, and then you can restore its condition. All these things will add value. They will not, in most cases, add as much value as has been lost over the years (a repaint is never worth as much as good original paint), but that's another matter.

Road Fan

How many more pejorative stereotypes could be loaded into this? Sheesh - I won't say more.

lotekmod

I don't think I'll ever own a bike with real historical significance. I buy bikes to ride them and if I don't like them for some reason, and the fact that they are cosmetically rough could be a reason, then I don't ride them. I do think about this preservation topic often though, mostly because my background is in architecture and I have had to consider this exact thing with old buildings. With buildings it is a careful balance to make them function as modern buildings so people will inhabit them while not losing all of the details. Tricky indeed, but a historically perfect building that is abandoned with a leaking roof is often worthless.

But back to bikes, I have a 1994 Kona mountain bike that I bought new and have ridden and raced for over 20 years. The frame is scratched and dented and half of the decals are gone. I will never paint that bike, it just wouldn't seem like mine anymore and I couldn't erase the 20 years of memories. Conversely I just pick up a 1984 Raleigh Marathon to convert into a townie bike. The frame is scratched and starting to rust and half of the decals are gone. I can't wait to paint that ugly thing and turn it into something beautiful. I have no problem covering up the 30 years of abuse that bike went through.

unterhausen

You have to give this to Peugeot, nobody ever complains about the low-end raleighs, probably because they didn't make it this far. At least the U0-8 frame was competently built. If someone wants to preserve them, more power to them. I think a Nishiki probably would be less of a headache to maintain. The Japanese bikes took over because they cost less and offered a bit more. By the early '80s (the equivalent of) a UO-8 cost most of $900 in today's dollars and a better Japanese bike was half that much, that made it hard to sell the Peugeot. Same thing with the Varsity, way too much money for what you got.

I have my '80s racing bike, which was far nicer than this kind of bike. It's really ragged, 30 years of riding will do that to a bike. The only way to save it is to repaint. Not sure I care to restore it.

Dave Cutter

Maybe I should have been clearer. Being "accounted for"... doesn't mean they are still around. Although 5... sounds like only the museum pieces. Many bicycles were donated to the war effort in metal drives... during WW2. Bicycles destroyed in house fires... are also accounted for.

Knowing what has happened to a rare collectable... is considered "accounted for". As the days, years, and centuries past.... fewer and fewer of these items will survive the wars, natural disasters, and fires. But most will be accounted for... even in their destruction.

b dub 

I personally enjoy the challenge of identifying a mystery frame.

Chopping off perfectly good braze-ones however is inexcusable.

desconhecido 

I don't know if that was intentional or not, but in either case, it's funny.

lostarchitect 

I was debating whether to say something. "Marxist sloganeerng," pssh.

SJX426 

I don't think the topic will ever be resolved, only by each individual. Standardizing when it is acceptable to change a bike is too controlling, sounds a bit socialistic to me. There are lots of hypocritical actions taken. If you really want to preserve the originality of the bike it needs to be put in a preservation box environmentally controlled!

We change brake pads, chains, freewheels, bar tape, saddles, tires and inner tubes to begin with. I know they are considered to be consumables, but so is the bike as a whole. It is just the frame that last a bit longer depending on how it is treated.

I think @lotekmod brings up a good point. A new bike owned and abused by me might not get the "restoration" because it represents my experience's. I don't want to lose the memories with a coat of paint. If I pick up someone else's "historic" bike, I have no qualm about "preserving" it.

I have three bikes as projects that have paint removed. The first is a Trek 610. How many did they make? It was rattle canned and drewed. I have no problem modifying it because it would otherwise be discarded in some way. The value is added with my personal touches of braze-ons and coat of paint. It now is a frankenbike, or as I call it - PaTREK, with personal value. Good enough. Someone else might like it too but I haven't looked for them. Modes shown here.

The second bike is a Burley Duet. There are a lot of these around too. The poor thing was stored at the beach and although it wasn't used much, it was a salt water magnet. My concern was its corrosive road to destruction. Pics here.

The third bike is a little more unique, a Pinarello Tre Cime (?). the paint and rust were too much for me to tolerate continuing to allow it to experience abuse and "Patina" as a result. I will not call it restoration but rather preservation. If I don't do something about it will be gone. The positive impact to me is that I get a well know bike that is above the UO-8 level for a song with personal therapy in the form of cleaning it up. I will give to my daughter who will appreciate it more over time (maturity). Two examples provided:
[IMG]P1000949 by superissimo_83, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]P1000928 by superissimo_83, on Flickr[/IMG]
OK 3!
[IMG]P1000940 by superissimo_83, on Flickr[/IMG]
There is more disgust here.