on the slippery question of "original", I'm reminded of a reproduction(?) of a WW II aircraft that I've seen a couple of times.
There is a very limited supply of fighter aircraft from WWII, and the prices reflect that. As such, it has become somewhat practical to actually build new examples of these aircraft. Within the last 10 years, I think, someone built a small run of Focke-Wulf Fw190 fighter aircraft. They were built per the factory prints and were functionally and visually identical (I've been told). Beautiful aircraft, and I was chatting with a fellow when I saw this one (below).
He told me about how it was built, and I asked "So it is a reproduction?".
"No, it's original because it was built in the same way as the planes built in the 1940's", was the reply.
I wasn't quite convinced, but I can understand that it as close to those 1940's aircraft as is currently possible.
Of course, you can go to a museum and see a 1940's Fw190 built in wartime Germany, using all of the original processes and possibly shortcuts, original materials, etc. Of course, some museums will clean up the aircraft, touch up the paint, fix some damage, etc.
This is the Fw190 at the Smithsonian Udvar-Hazy National Air & Space Museum
In a somewhat similar situation in the bike world, I've seen a replica Colnago Super built by Brian Baylis. It does say "built by Brian Baylis" on the chainstay, but otherwise looks like a Colnago Super. If you'd always wanted a Colnago Super in your size, this seems like a reasonable way to do it.
and finally, and only loosely related to the idea of "original", I have seen Richard Sachs display a cyclocross bike at NAHBS that was still covered in mud.
That's authentic!
Steve in Peoria