Originally Posted by
Pistard
Just pondering... before restoring bicycles, I restored old muscle cars, in that industry it is very common to use a base, lets say 68 Mustang, and turn it into a Shelby, or other high end Stang from the same period, I am curious why this does not seem to be similar in bicycle, so may frames to choose from etc, the De Rosa thread got me thinking about that, I mean decals are available, repaint a frame is pretty affordable etc
opinions?
The question is really "What is being "restored"? Is it a Shelby being "restored", or is it what the Shelby represents (its cultural significance)?
Museum conservators basically take the position that the object only represents the culture of the time and it is the culture being "restored" through that object.
This happens all the time with "vintage" bikes. When someone goes OCD with "Period Correct" they are trying to maintain the congruity of the cultural significance of the object. If you put Ergos on a '65 Cinelli (which was the bees knees of it's time), it somehow doesn't work. All you have done is put Ergos on an old bike. But if you put repro decals and a repro headbadge on a '65, you reproduce the cultural significance of a '65 Cinelli. Without them you just have a Cinelli bike.
If it is necessary to start with a '68 Tang and then "restore" it to a Shelby in order to "restore" the cultural significance of a Shelby, then that's O.K. It works. But, it is not a Shelby. As soon as it is promoted as one, it is a fraud. The experience of creating the Shelby is the value, not the end result.
r