I knew somebody would miss the point entirely.

I wasn't saying the bike is the equivalent of a Van Gogh. I was saying that there are some types of property that are held in stewardship. The Van Gogh is an obvious illustration of the idea that "ownership" doesn't give one the right to do whatever one pleases with the "property." And stewardship isn't limited to Van Goghs-- it's applicable to a wide range of "property."

On the continuum of use, ranging from complete destruction, through irretrievably altering the property, through preserving the property intact for future generations, something that is common and readily and easily replaceable and meant to be consumed and discarded may be at the complete destruction end of the scale. On the other hand, the closer the property approaches the uncommon, and is not readily and easily replaceable, and is not meant to be consumed and discarded, the closer it is to the end of the continuum at which property, while used and enjoyed, is nevertheless preserved intact for future generations.

BlueOrder, personally I agree with you. I got kinda flamed on another thread for saying that although I really like Vitus aluminum frame bikes, I can't ride one because I'd ruin it (too heavy at 6'3" 225lbs). Personally I feel like it's a privilege to get to own one of these many classic bikes. If other people had not treated them well they would not be around for all of us to enjoy. Should we not pass that along? Unfortunately the prevailing culture does not look at things that way most of the time. A pity.

Karl

Down the line...

The Miyata in that link above this is a top of the line model which are much rarer -- hopefully worthy of a restoration at some point. The frame in question here is a much more common model, and like I mentioned earlier, by no means a classic. Condition was good at best. If the fixie/SS hipsters want to mess with frames of that ilk and condition, then let them have at it, as restorations of those aren't cost effective. It's when they get their unrespectful hands on really nice frames and mess them up is when I become annoyed.

I am not a fixie/ss fan myself, but I am not about to tell someone else what they should do with their personal property. There are plenty of stewards of this model Raleigh. The stewardship argument doesn't hold water for this one. Save it for better frames.

Who's the arbiter of what's worthy of being preserved? Whose standard of "worthy" do we go by?

There was a time when my '77 Motobecane was just an outdated bike, and I considered making some minor but permanent changes to it. Now I'm glad I didn't do it, because enough time has passed that it's made the progression from "outdated" to "classic." Sure, there are lots of Grand Tourings around, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to turn this one into something else. And the next one. And the next one. But at some point, you start running out of them. They only made a limited number, and they're not making any more. For what it's worth, I will be making some changes to the Motobecanes, but they will be enhancements, rather than fundamentally and irreversibly altering them. And if I want, or somebody down the line wants, they will be able to easily put them back into stock condition. Will they ever be "really nice frames"" Nope. Are they "classics"? Absolutely.

And in fact, I've got another bike that I will be converting into a fixie. No need for me to grind parts off, because there's nothing to grind off. And the conversion itself isn't irreversible. In the end, I will have a vintage fixie conversion that still preserves the frameset that is at the heart of the bike...even if that frameset will never be particularly valuable (and I should note that the frameset is unusual enough to make it an interesting fixie conversion nonetheless.).

Finally, I think it is the "personal property" argument that doesn't hold water, when you're talking about something that is no longer being made. First, I think it smacks of elitism to suggest that only frames judged by some mystery arbiter as "better" are worthy of stewardship. Second, that '86 Raleigh may not be particularly valued today, but as they disappear from the face of the Earth, people will begin wishing they had preserved Raleigh's from the "seafoam and lilac" era. Nobody, on the other hand, will give a toss about generic powdercoated mystery frames that are "alleged" to be made of Reynolds 531, or "alleged" to be made by a particular marque. Those will be a dime a dozen at the metal scrapyard.

Addendum: Depending on how one draws the boundaries, I myself may be on the wrong side of the "stewardship" relationship with at least some of my bikes. There's a fine line between "enhancing" or "upgrading" a bike and destroying its history, and I'm not even sure myself where some of my projects fall within that spectrum, or if it even matters for some of my projects. Some examples:

Motobecane Grand Tourings: The paint and graphics will be kept stock. The drivetrains will be modified from 10 to 15 speed. This was a period-correct upgrade, however. I also plan to add fenders and racks-- again, period correct. The bottom brackets will be replaced with Phil Woods, and the auxiliary brake levers will be replaced with guidonnets (if it worls aesthetically). The paint will be touched up with automotive paint. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Fujis: The Allegro will be rebuilt as a fast road tourer. The hi-ten fork will be swapped out for a Valite fork. The underlying gold paint will be kept, but I am changing the trim from brown to red. Components will be upgraded in terms of quality and contemporary performance. Wheels will be changed from 27" to 700c (I don't want Ms. Blue Order to have to struggle with odd sizes). The Sagres will be repainted blue, Ms. Blue Order's favorite color, with gold trim. I haven't quite decided how to build the Sagres, but it will probably become a city bike, again with 700c wheels, and with flat bars and upgraded components. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Gitane: My commuter, the Gran Tour will be kept mostly stock, except for the simplex barcons, which I'm not having much luck finding, and which will likely be replaced by SunTour barcons. I also plan to add cyclocross interrupter levers, and change to aero levers on the drops. Enhancements? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Trek 850s: These will be powdercoated fluorescent green (stock color is yellow), and stock decals will be commissioned and applied. The under the chain stay u-brake mounts may or may not be replaced with seat stay cantilever mounts. The cable guides will most likely be cut off and relocated to the top of the top tube. These will be rebuilt with mostly contemporary touring componentry. Conversion to touring bikes? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Raleigh Portages: These will be powdercoated white (stock color). The head badge decal will be replaced with a brass head badge. Only one of the decals will be reapplied. Componentry will be upgraded. The mixte is actually newer than the diamond frame, so I will be replacing the fork and the bars with a fork and bars that match the older of the two Portages. Enhanced? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Trek 830: This will be my winter commuter. Cantilever posts to be cut off and replaced with disc tabs on fork, and an internal hub on the rear. Enhancement? Or destruction of the bike's history and context?

Raleigh Record: My fixie bait. Unless I find one in bronze green, I may paint a blue one bronze green, with appropriate white trim and correct decals. The fixie conversion itself will not alter the frame in any way...with the exception of the bottom bracket threads. Destruction of the bike's history and context? Or acceptable period-correct alteration?

I use these examples to illustrate my own dilemma when confronted with my own words. How much change to a bike is "too much"? How much change exceeds the permissible bounds of good stewardship? Why is it OK for me, for example, to relocate cable guides on my Trek 850, but it's not OK for somebody else to grind his cable guides off? Why is it OK for me to powdercoat my Trek 850 a different color, but it's not OK for somebody else to powdercoat his uniquely-colored classic bike white? My point in raising these questions is that there's not necessarily a bright line between permissible changes and violations of the trust we keep. Or maybe there is, but we excuse our own follies more readily than we excuse the follies of others. Is "destroying" a bike's history like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it"? Or is there a readily definable line beyond which the "owner" of the "personal property" should not cross?