Originally Posted by
sciencemonster
I would agree wholeheartedly assuming that, like the Packard, the upholstery is all ripped up and the floorboard is rusted thru under the accelerator. However, if the bike is in decent shape, I find old objects to have an intrinsic value missing from a restoration, even a professionally done one. I would much prefer to have an unrestored and mildly banged up old bike then a trashed bike repainted. In fact, I wouldn't want a restored bike at all, but that's just me.
That said, my definition of what looks like crap is probably a whole lot more conservative than yours. It takes a whole lot of scratches before I'd call an old bike toast.
Here is where it gets interesting, take my mountain bike, it was build in 2004, making it 7 this year, if I take that bike and strip it and repaint it, the same livery, simply because it looks like crap after a few unplanned dismounts and other times where gravity and asphalt have not been kind to it. Do you honestly think that in 2054 anybody would know, whether I painted it or not? I often wonder how people can refuse to paint a bike, to save the original paint, without knowing if it is even the original factory paint on it. As I have said more then once, if your repainting a bicycle, try to stick with the same colour and scheme.