As I observe the valuations and clean-up recommendations passed around on this forum, I am a bit baffled at how the C&V community frowns upon repainting and severely reduces the value and desirability of a bike that has been repainted. The prevailing opinion among C&Vers seems to be faded paint, scratches, chips and light surface oxidation are better preserved as "patina" rather than a refinish.

When you contrast this to older cars, it seems to be the opposite. Aside from an exotic collectible or someone going for a "rat" look, something like a 1967 Chevelle with a fresh paint job is more desirable than a car with paint that is faded, chipped and scratched.

So why the difference with our 2-wheelers? Why isn't a quality CycleArt paint and decal job on a Colnago Super viewed as more desirable than a Colnago Super with original paint that is worn, chipped, scratched, etc.?

The logic is that it's only original once.

+1.

The difference between cars and bikes is not that big, as far as I'm concerned. I like my C&V cars better in original shape as well. Having said that, cars are more susceptible to damage (rust) than bikes, so a repaint becomes necessary sooner if a car is in daily use.

A '67 Chevelle had a pretty flat paint job across the entire car.

To strip 20 inches of paint off the seat tube on my Fuji America, you'd have to remove a Fuji 331 Tubing decal, the pair of rainbow stickers around the manufacturer name decal, the manufacturer name decal itself, and a 70s Gregg's Greenlake Cycle sticker.

Different strokes for different folks. Some only collect 100% original, some want showroom new condition all original, some want to improve/modify the original. Oddly, certain modifications like adding Brooks saddles, and replacing chrome rims are universally accepted here without so much as a whimper.

Probably the hardest to swallow about bike refinishing is that reproduction decals are what they are, reproduction decals.

I have three frames that have been poorly spray bombed by prior owners, so I have no guilt in refinishing these frames.

1981 Miyata 1000 - material oxidation in spots, poor non-matching spray bomb here and there, faded decals.


1985 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe - spray bombed, no decals, missing headbadge. Correct Schwinn decals are somewhat unobtanium, but there is an Ohio vendor who has a pretty deep inventory at the Ann Arbor Bike Show every year.


CIOCC - spray bombed, no decals, only maker ID is on BB shell.


A local outfit will media blast and powder coat all three for $200 total. I'll probably go with a British racing green for all three, as it goes great with skinwalls and brown or honey saddles.

But that's not logic, it's emotion. The fact that many people feel the same way perhaps raises the resell value of an original paint job on a bike, which is a logical reason to not do it.

As someone pointed out in this forum once, an exception would be for a historical bike. Would you repaint Greg Lemond's 1989 TdF time trial bike? On the other hand, Bob Roll (Bobke hisself) came by the shop I was working in at the time after a TdF Merckx bike he wanted to consign. There were dents in it, touched up swathes of paint, and a couple of cable guides were rusting out. It sold at considerably less than a brand new Merckx. The guy who bought it thought it would be cool to have a TdF bike, I remember everyone he rode with thought he was a poseur, and told him he'd better watch for potholes, the idea being it was one more good whack from falling apart.

Common bikes, like PX-10's, Raleigh Internationals, Competitions, etc. had crappy paint to begin with. I think they're worth more, and look better repainted.

One man's opinion.

I used to collect antique British/Canadian militart rifles. the FASTEST way to lose a lot of value on them was to refinish the browning/blueing.

With bicycles I think part of the reason is that a repaint can hide what model the bicycle is or even the maker if one uses new decals.

Cheers

Not fully agreeing with the statement and regards to collector cars. Not in all cases, but serious flawed, surface rust - original condition on cars can bring significant more at auction. I've seen it on very early 'brass era' junkers to 1950s - 60's era special blue chip collectors cars.

Maybe because the paint is applied by CycleArt and not Colnago's shop or subcontractor. Same is true with decals, although it is more acceptable to replace them for some reason. Saddles are another exception, we need to be able to ride the bike!

I always save my "Don't Paint It" admonishments for rare bikes that look good a little beat up. My elderly Grandis is a good example. It has that "Been to the Races" look about it:


OTOH, when I decided to refresh my beater Lambert (same vintage as the Grandis), I decided a custom spray was in order, since nobody makes repro decals for the year/model I have.


My Lambert, while it's a nice enough frame, was never expensive or sought after like Grandis. Obviously, it was a lot more beat up, too, and had no original parts. Not even a Death Fork.

I guess I make the call by judging what I'm going to lose, if I do a repaint.

Here's what I gained, from my rattle can job - did I do bad?

@lascauxcaveman Very nice outcome at a minimal cost. That is pretty much how I see it after learning from all the more experienced members of C&V during the past year and a half. The PX10 that I will be working on shortly has less than perfect paint but I do not see a need for the expense since it still looks quite good. However I had no qualms PCing my U08 commuter build and it is much more appealing to my palate now.

Beyond the aesthetic issues, a repaint can also hide repairs, or be necessitated by said repairs. Let's say you buy a bike and in overhauling it you notice overspray of a different color on the fork steerer. Is this a replacement fork, you wonder? Dents can be rolled out, have bondo added and then get a repaint. Maybe even a tube replaced. If it has the original paint, a buyer has a better sense of how hard a life the frame has lived.

If a bike needs a repaint, repaint the thing. Unless it's REALLY decent original paint, or a super rare bike, I see no harm in repainting. The seller honesty side of it is an entire other issue.

This. You don't know what's under the repaint. Also, most glossy repaints don't replicate the original paint well, and they hide some of the bike's beauty. Cars were never produced with the attention to detail most higher end bikes receive...because they're so much larger and more automated.

I'd much rather have a patina'd Galmozzi than a restoration.

Personally, I want my long term keeper bikes with good original paint. If the paint isn't nice to look at, I somewhat lose interest in that bike for some reason. If I adored the way a bike rode and never plan to get rid of the bike, I'd consider a repaint if it needed it. But it'd have to be from one of the better painters out there with a long track record.

I don't buy bikes with repaints.

Do what you feel is right, I like patina on my bikes and my cars as mentioned they are only original once.
Paint it, change the color etc.... when you decide to sell it someone that likes what you have done will buy it....in the end you can't take it with you...so enjoy it while you can.
JM2C's
P.S. I have yet to see a non factory paint job hold up as well as the factory applied finish....unless its on a Pinarello...I have one so I fell I can mention the brand.

I disagree that a good quality repaint is always detrimental. If the repaint is equal to a professional quality in terms of preparation and application, the results can be very positive.

My concern with a repaint is that it could hide dents and other serious damage. Having said that, I recently repaint a 1971 PX10 and I had the Schwinn factory in Chicago repaint my Paramount in 1981.

The fork on the PX10 had lost much of it's paint. It's not unusual for a part that's been chromed to lose paint. I considered repainting just the fork, but I was concerned that the new paint would contrast with the old paint on the frame. Fortunately the Chicago area has a great bike painter and I decided to have the entire frame painted. The color match was very good and the painter took great care to preserve the seat-tube decals and the headbadge. Only the down-tube decal is new.

BEFORE



AFTER




BEFORE



AFTER




BEFORE



AFTER




BEFORE



AFTER




BEFORE



AFTER

[MENTION=47570]Barrettscv[/MENTION] I never tire of seeing photos of your PX.

Pre-paint photos are nice but seldom seen. Sellers at least admitting the bike is a repaint instead of trying to pass it off as original is a good thing.
I asked a similar question here about one of my bikes several years back. After posting up a few pics, a board member I had great respect for said he'd leave it. Considering it is somewhat of a rare bike, I took that advice. I did touch up the paint, to keep it from deteriorating from the elements.
In another case, I am about to take delivery of another bicycle which has been repainted, and has all original parts. The seller is very well respected. He and his business partner do an excellent job finding old rare road bikes and reconditioning them.
In my opinion there really isn't a correct answer to the paint/leave original debate.

I dunno, I can see why people don't like CV's to be powder coated, lots of reasons for that.

But painting (for example) a frame that's paint is toast, or has already had a dodgy paint job... well i see no harm in that.

But if you have a CV with original paint, pass it on to someone before you paint it... thats what stopped me from painting in the past.

unless its something super rare, if you want to paint it, paint it.

Everyone talks like repainting will make it lose its value, but I've yet to have a single bike collector come knocking on my door offering cash for my rusty old bike.

Will it loose finanical value? probably, but if repainting a bike makes you happy, makes you ride it more, and makes your time with it better, then go for it, and roll on by the haters who keep their vintage bikes in the garage.

Lots of Italian frames from the 80's and 90's have questionable paint that chips and flakes if you sneeze on it too hard ---

For me, i guess i'd take it bike by bike ---- a like a frameset with a little character, -- but if there is repaired damage or severe flaking --- paint that thing and give it a new lease on life

I think the answer that most of us would agree to is "it depends". Paint does 2 things: it protects the frame from rusting (steel frames, that is), and it is an artistic expression of the bike. I think a good topic for discussion would be a "before and after" paint thread - post your pics before and after, and have a poll on a scale of 1-5 of worse to better to give a glimpse of what others think. Hmmmm, how would that poll work? The tools available on this site would be one bike, one thread, I would think.

For example, @Lascauxcaveman posted two bikes where I completely agree with his decisions. the Grandis has a few knicks, "beausage" comes to mind. The Lambert, on the other hand, is in need of new paint.

This poll wouldn't invalidate the person's decision, but would give some insight into resale value, perhaps?

The older a bike the more inclined I am to leave it mostly old. It depends is mostly my attitude these days. I prefer the look of a bit of patina on things.

There's some that would have repainted this bike:

I'm not sure if it's a PX-10 or not but it's some nice French bike and it cleaned up amazingly well. I love the look of the worn paint and the components have all been cleaned up and polished so it looks cared for.


I powdercoated a miyata 1000 that I picked up, but it was totally ruined with a few horrible paint jobs. The local powdercoat guy did an amazing job on it and I use for touring and randonneuring so I appreciate the durability of the PC.



I use the miyata a lot, hopefully this will see another 5,000km this year. I could have done a better job with the decals/stickers but they are common enough that I can reapply them in a few years when I wear them all off.

Personally I don't worry about the value of these bikes, both are more valuable now should I want to sell them but I enjoy them and use them so resale isn't a real concern for me, nor are they historically significant in any way.