As I said, you can see from the replies so far, I tend to be the exception. I also agree again with Zorro, if some one in the past repainted the original, it is fair game.
I also don't mind if you alter the original to fix a functional flaw (ie, new top tube because the original cracked). It is a utilitarian object, once again, it is not art.
I understand potential when it is cleaning the bike and doing the necessary maintenance to make a smooth ride. I even understand upgrades as long as they can be reversed. What I don't get is wanting to change the original. If you don't like it in the first place, have the patience to wait for something you do want instead of ruining it for some one else. Chips, scratches and dings are inevitable, and all old bikes will have them, I don't understand why that is a bad thing.
I'll write it one more time, it is original only once.
I think we're differing only in degrees. I don't mind chips and scratches as long as they don't mar the overall appearance of the bike. If they're not jumping out at me like giant scars when I'm standing far enough away to take in the whole bike then I don't care.
Just curious. How would you feel if a 3 year old accidentally knocked that Gloria over and added a few more chips and dings?;-)
The way I look at is this. We're both altering the natural aging process, -you by attempting to stop it, -me by rolling it back some. In my mind if it's OK to fix mechanical problems, then it should be OK to fix costmetic ones. However, I also understand the desire to leave the evidence of the bike's passage through time.