You know the problem I have with some of you guys' definition of "conservation" is that it should really only apply to a very small percentage of bikes of great historical sigificance like Fausto's or Eddie's that belong in a museum. Carried to the extreme that you guys are stating then every bike that isn't NOS/NIP stored in a wearhouse someplace for 40 years is "restored" because the original owner certainly had to perform standard maintenance and replace chains, freewheels, brakepads, etc.

Conservation in a broad sense should include normal maintenance and repair that is expected of a bicycle of that age to make it useable. Restoration is mainly a oriented towards the frame and should include things like chrome, paint, and decals.

Otherwise it's like saying that a vintage car that's had the oil and filters changed and the brake pads/shoes replaced isn't "original". Seems crazy to me.