Does Originality Count?
 

I'm new to vintage bikes, but, through my garage sale adventures, I have acquired a few older bikes that are in very good to excellent condition. So I'm on my way.
I used to campaign a show Corvette many years ago in my single days. I remember that originality was paramount. A car in fair condition, but all original, usually beat an immaculate car that had several non-stock changes. So, when I evaluated my small number of older bikes I placed high value on originality. However, as I read various threads in the Vintage Forum, I noticed many posts about great old bikes that have been 'upgraded' with 700c rims and tires, newer gearing, new saddles, etc.
My question is, what's up with the changes? Is the value of an older bike (I'm referring to 70's or 80's bikes) not affected by changes or if I have an original in very good or excellent condition, should I maintain those original components. (Of course I'm not reffering to like for like replacement tires or brake pads.)

It took me a while in your email to understand that originality meant all original components. I usually interpret originality as creativity... creating an original... However, looking at your usage, it makes sense enough that I went to a dictionary sie to make sure I wasn't crazy. :D

But, anyway... For a collectible bike, it is best to have all original components if it is a museum piece, and some people like them that way for riding as well. There is some prestige associated with owning an all original classic...

However, the attitude of most people in this forum tends to freely allow for expression through creative upgrades while retaining the classic features of a bike. But, there are some that have fine machines that are all original, and they get the forum equivalent of oohs and aahhs every time they are shown or discussed.

Ask many people here, and it seems the answer would be that if a bike isn't to be ridden, then there is an issue. If it is ridden more, then many will see the changes as beneficial.

There is a difference between the car folks and the bicycle folks in general (but not universally) that for cars, one that looks unused and is never driven is the best... in the bicycling world, the beauty of pristene bikes is appreciated, but you will almost always get comments like "Ride it!"

However, if there are organized bike shows like there are car shows, I am sure that they place a high value on bikes being in original condition.

EDIT: And to answer another of your questions, the monetary value of most bikes, regardless of the original components will not usually be enough to make your decision... although the usual comment is to hold on to the original components "just in case."

Yeah it seems like very few bicycles are actually "collectable" museum peices. Those that are such are very old or very special (Historically significant Paramounts, for instance). There isn't a group of wealthy bike collectors out there bidding them up, and most bikes will never be worth more than their original sticker price. This form is mainly for people who like to ride and work on old bicycles, not collect them (although it seems hard to not "accidently" end up with a large collection).

Many changes can be reversed (saddles, 700c rims, etc) in bicycling, often within a few hours time, so the consequences of changing parts isn't as great, provided you keep the original parts. It seems to me that classsic bikes from the 70s and 80s fall into two broad categories:
1. Original-spec or period-correct bikes that were expensive and fancy and rare even in their day. There are relatively few of these.
2. Very nice classic bikes that may or may not have updated parts. Ranges from stuff that in its day was top-of-the-line (but not rare of custom) to stuff that was the everyday person's bike (and still is). Seems like most of us on this forum have these.

Similiar to vehicles, an original, pristine classic is only really valuable if it was valuable in it's day, too. A pristine Corvette is worth collecting, a pristine K-car, not as much. Still, like vehicles an art, buty it because you want it, not as an investment!

Updating components will not add $ value to a classic bike, only riding enjoyment value. If you upgrade/alter a bike to increase riding enjoyment, this increase in enjoyment will easily surpass any lost dollar value in 99.9% of the cases. And as I said earlier, most of the changes you would make can be reversed.

I'm sure I'm missing some subtleties here, expect others to chime in soon.

I think the main difference in "Original" (OEM) in Cars and Bicycles is that with cars, the majority of the components were labeled or branded by the car manufacturer, where as the Bicycle it was mainly just the frame, and the components were from somebody else. This gives way to a lot of interpretation of what is correct or period correct.


However like cars, some people like to restore fully as if it just rolled of the manufacturing floor (Concourse), while others like to leave it untouched (except cleaning) retaining the patina of the years (Collectors), and then there are the ones that like to retain the style, but improve the performance with new parts and different paint (Hot Rodders)....

As long as you are having fun, there is no right or wrong, just enjoy! :)

I want a bike that has that classic look, but works well. So I won't be putting brifters on it, but I don't mind putting a new shimano freewheel, or 700c wheels. If I was building something to hang on the wall, display, or sell to a collector, it'd be different.

I've been to many a car show where there are huge arguments about whether this hose was routed over or under that hose from the factory. Originality, to those guys, means "as it left the showroom floor." Personally, I just want to ride a nice, interesting bike that didn't cost me $1000. It turns out it's unbelieveably easy to do. I don't have any problem with someone who wants to make any kind of modification to an older bike for the sake of riding it unless that bike is particularly rare or in unusually good condition.

To use your Vette example, no one cares if you take a 1973 Vette with 150,000 miles on it, tub it out for some big tires and throw a blown big-block in it. Everyone cares if you want to do the same thing to a nice, stock '63.

All of my bikes have been purchase as frames by themselves with the exception of my most recent one. I have built them up with as many correct components as possible and used others that are period correct or just simply available. As time goes on, I search for more correct parts. Slowly, I have gotten pretty close to stock. I guess I want them as correct as possible without going overboard or paying too much money for overpriced components.

"Stock" is harder to define with bikes esp. those imported during the 1970s "boom." Numerous bikes in threads in this forum are original but don't match their catalogue. Add to that the fact that many top-enders came as a frameset which would be specced by the buyer and built by the shop and that customers frequently swapped components on bikes before they left the floor. You can check the stock list on your '68 Camaro for originality but it's not as easy for your DeRosa.

"Period correct" seems to be the common goal and as mentioned above fairly easy to achieve. The big thing would be to keep your gruppos intact, no Dura Ace mixed in with the Campy :). (Though to be honest I put together a 531 frame originally specced with N. Record and the front derailleur was irreedemably ugly and I used a very clean DA changer and the Gods haven't struck me down......yet.


:beer:

The gods must be crazy.

Often, the choice to keep original and or to "modify" is difficult, there are three "seriously" attended but can't comment on the judging as I have not submitted Vintage Lightweight Bike Shows in the USA, original paint and original specifications will prevail, all of the above in perfect shape will prevail more. IF, and a big if, they are a desireable bike in the first place. In the past few years I have seen, new in the box Raleigh Professionals and a NOS Masi Gran Criterium on ebay, If one took both out of the box assembled them, (with a photo documentation of assembly) and showed them both at the same show, the Masi would win, fewer made and more desire. Period.

Now, lets move to the more common stuff, change a stem to make the bike fit better? I would do it, (gets harder if the stem was originally pantographed) Tires... can be a problem, NOS may not be safe, so be reasonable there. Brake blocks are another possible problem, NOS may not be what one wants to use, at least anymore, a case by case decision.

I have pursued several variations on this theme. I freely change gear ratios, and even number of gears, to something which suits my needs (a total range of mid 40s to mid 90s gear-inches, preferably with 6-7% development). I have put SunTour rear derailleurs and Shimano or SunTour front derailleurs on every Peugeot I have owned, and I have a nice set of dual-pivot Shimano brakes ready for my Bianchi, because I just don't feel safe with the early Campagnolo sidepulls. I am having the most fun with the pair of Capos, updating the upgrading the components on the 1959 and keeping the 1960 very nearly stock, although I will probably rebuild the wheels with stainless steel spokes and clincher rims. However, I am keeping the original Campag. Gran Sport derailleurs, Agrati cottered steel cranks and steel road quill pedals, and the adjustable-reach Ambrosio stem.

Depends if the bike is for riding or collecting. As someone already mentioned, there aren't many OEM bike parts anymore. Some collectors are very anal to the point of requiring the original brand tires and even handlebar tape, preferably NOS. But if you're gonna ride it, use whatever works best. I'm sure some collectors would look down their noses at the Dia-Comp hoods on my Nuovo Record brakes.

I feel that saving as many nice bikes from the landfill as possible is important.

An analogy: If I had the power to go back in time and prevent nice '40s,'50s and '60s cars from being cubed or going to their ends in figure 8 races, I'd make it a priority. If I had to repair them with nonoriginal or not-numbers-matching parts, so what? The cool, interesting cars will have been preserved.

I will admit that I enjoy looking at original bikes, and agree that many old bicycles need to be owned by individuals who will preserve them in excellent condition. Where I diverge from this is the damaged or basketcase bicycle that would present too great a challenge for restoration. You can get into a "George Washinton's axe" situation with a bicycle like that. In such a case, I think building a nonoriginal bike would be preferable to it being cannibalized as a parts bike.

I love old bikes. It's a hobby i can easily afford. If popularity and rarity coincide, old bikes could soon become very expensive as speculators start buying everything in sight(witness the Schwinn explosion). At first only the "blue chips" are in demand. After a while special bikes will gain interest, and finally when everything else is priced out of reason, the ordinary will rise in value.

If there's a large number of old bikes remaining, perhaps this phenomena can be avoided, and the people who love bikes more than money can stay in the life. That is my self-interested take on originality and bike collecting emulating the trends of car collecting.

Good analogy. Brings to mind all the old American cars from the fifties still running in Cuba, all preserved using bits of tin, parts from different cars and ingenuity.

Yes, we're talking about Classic & Vintage bikes here. In my opinion, converting a classic English, French or Italian bike over to cheap Chinese components to keep it running because the original parts have been priced off the consumer market by serious collectors, would be sacreligious. However, I see nothing wrong with replacing consumables like tires, straps, chains, freewheels, etc., with whatever looks right and works.

I consider a vintage bike with new components like a street rod, it looks good in an older body but runs and keeps up with the new ones. All the best parts with a vintage look.

Might as well chime in here as a few of my bikes fit the discussion.

evidence: 1974 RIH all original (with exception of tires and brake shoes), I prefer it
that way, and prefer the patina that came with the bike.
evidence: 1983 Pogliaghi Ital Corse Pista. Has a mix of components, some older
than the bike (crankset is 151 BCD old), some new (Miche BB) and some period
correct (super record headset).
evidence: 1989 Serotta running Campy Chorus 8 speed with Ergo etc.

None of my bikes are what you would call "collectors", I build them to ride I don't show
them, the are not entries on Concours competitions so for me it's not important.
while I prefer to keep them period correct if I need to mix n match to get them on
the road, so be it.

marty

Thanks for all the input. I can see that originality is not as big a deal as I thought it was. I especially liked the comment about an old original Corvette vs an old original K-car. Certainly some of the bikes I own are more K-car than Corvette. I have one or two old road bikes that I'm going to maintain as original because I like them that way. One of them is the Fuji Monterey below. Not exactly a high value, collectible, but it's a creampuff and those chrome steel wheels are polished to a point where you can shave in them.
But I'm not going to sweat making changes to other bikes. Thanks again.