To quote the Princess Bride..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I hear conservation, restoration and reproduction used a lot when talking about bikes or reading about them in articles and forums and I don't know if I am just CDO (OCD but in alphabetical order like it should be!) or if people really feel these words can be used interchangably.

Allow me to give you my definitions and you tell me if I am way off base.

Conservation: Keeping the bike in as much of the original (from manufacturer) condition as possible. No powder coating, no new parts just cleaned really well and kept in working order.

Restoration: In extreme case (if required), a complete strip down and repaint and rebuild of the bike to manufacturers specs as if it has just come off the showroom floor.

Reproduction: To me it just screams "new" not an original. Plain and simple. Much like one can go buy a "Shelby Cobra" car....its not an original but it is an exact copy.

Then of course there is the majority of bikes out there...the "Modified" or the "Frankenbike"

What are your thoughts?

I think the same as you. But the problem is that the definitions of most words today are so skewed some people don't know what to say. I think the wanton use of "restoration" comes from car culture and people thinking that making something "like" factory specs is a "restoration" when in fact it's a resto-mod. And then all the hot rodders and customizers out there giving the same story. It carries over. And people think their acting like Chip Foose to bicycles is a restoration, because who accurately restores, cares about, or collects bicycles, right?
-Gene-

Conservation -

Leave the bike alone (in its existing condition) except for light cleaning, oil,...maintenance. Retains the "patina" that comes with age. Arrests any ongoing corrosion or other damage mechanisms at play.

Restoration -

Return the bike to its original condition. Usually means the bike is too far gone for conservation or the owner wants something more than a pure conservation offers. May be a minor or major overhaul. Minor being replacement of parts with original equipment. Major being new paint, new seat, etc (all of factory specs) plus everything/anything that is likely to be in the category of "minor".

Reproduction -

A newly made unit that looks identical (or nearly so) to an older unit. Some reproductions cross the line into deliberate forgeries. Some are nearly so but with an intentional identifying mark on them (i.e., a different serial number) that proves they are just a reproduction. Some are updated versions based on the older design.

I think we are very close in our understanding of these terms.

I'll agree with what Mike says but with a few caveats...there is something between conservation and restoration. For example, as I understand Mike's definition, if you were to acquire a bike that you would like to conserve and ride but the chain and freewheel are worn, putting new ones on would be a minor restoration. I think that's going a bit far. There are certain parts on a bicycle that are considered consumables - tires, tubes, cables, cable housing, brake pads, chains, freewheels, chainrings, bearings, cones, individual spokes...if you had to do all of that I suppose it would be a major overhaul but not necessarily a restoration. If you think about it, the original owner could have already done that many times (he almost certainly did if he was riding the bike) and you might never even know. So I'm going to say that performing normal maintenance on a bicycle, including the items listed above, is not a restoration, just part of conservation.

Obviously if you somehow acquired Fausto Coppi's bike you might not want to do that maintenance but then you probably wouldn't ride it either.

Then there is a whole 'nother catagory that you left out: Restification. I won't even go into that here, it deserves its own thread.

Does "Refurbishment" fall in there someplace? And what about those of us who just want to make the old bikes rideable again with different parts (and can't afford to restore them to the original condition)?

What about my 7-Eleven Eddy Merckx?



It's an actual former Pro 7-Eleven rider's frame, I have confirmation from the factory as to when it was produced, and for whom it was produced, including paint and decal codes.

I've had it repainted as closely as possible to the original paint scheme. I had to have it repainted because the original owner had crashed it & repaired it:


I rode it for years with a mix of Campy components. Last year I pieced together enough Dura Ace 8-speed parts to satisfy myself that it's close enough to a full group. The only non-DA parts on it that could be DA are the headset (Onza Mongo UFO), hubs (600 Ultegra), bottom bracket (600 Ultegra), pedals (Onza HO or Look Carbon, depending on mood), and seat post (American Classic). At a quick glance, the average cyclist would think it's original. I don't care that it's not, and don't purport it to be.

So what I've done couldn't be considered Conservation, because I had it repainted. The frame/forks were given to me as shown in the pics, there was a DA headset on it, but I don't know what's become of that. Any parts that are on it I had to add, as it wasn't rideable as is.

It also couldn't be considered a Restoration. When it was repainted, I was only able to get the Merckx decals. I couldn't get the Wolber/Columbus/7-Eleven/Rider Name decals. I also didn't put a complete DA group on it.

It's also not a Reproduction, as the frame is actually a Team 7-Eleven frame. I suppose it'd be like buying the body & chassis to an original Shelby Cobra that was wrecked, and getting the body work repaired and then installing the correct engine, with a different exhaust & wheels than came stock. It's still a Shelby Cobra, it's just not like it came from the factory, and it's not a reproduction.

I suppose it could be a Refurbishment. Like CMC SanDiego said above, I wanted to make it rideable, and didn't care that the parts weren't original.

Ok, check out my new thread on restification, I think that adresses what many of you are thinking.

Watch "Antiques Roadshow" more often. You will see that appraised value and collectability have absolutely nothing to do with what you, the current owner, can afford to do. This is why you see people always telling others to bag and tag the parts they are taking off and save them.

Of course there are gray areas between the categories the OP presented. I do not think wholesale replacement of a freewheel and/or chain or chainrings qualifies as a conservation unless they were replaced with OEM parts.

I'd say the repair and repaint are clearly a restoration. VVia these operations, you restored it to its original glory (original configuration).

Agreed, I was thinking of OEM parts in that case but didn't spell that out. Using different parts, usually more modern parts that improve function gets into what I call restification.

Partial Restoration - and not worth nearly as much as a totally orig one would be worth. Just my HO.

What cracks me up is that the 70's bike boom bikes are held in such low regard that everyone of them will eventually be in a land fill somewhere, recycled or otherwise be disposed of. When they are all gone, perhaps one hundred years from now, someone, somewhere will have one in pristine condition and it will be worth a MINT! It will be in museum-worthy as a relic of a by-gone era.

It takes time but it will happen.

I don't care what it's worth to others. Its value to me is greater now than it would be had I left it with the crash damage & visible repair. It would be nice, however to have the decals that I'm missing restored, but that's very doable now.

The word was "inconceiveable".

Conservation has little meaning to me, besides saving water, minerals, and fossil fuels for my use.
Needed Repairs/Maintenance is getting the bike to work properly as is, including wear-out replacements.
Restoration is spending way more than value added to get the vehicle back to original specs.
Reproduction is a copy of an original, with accuracy only a guage. monodo's EM, EddyR's 7-11...
Rehabilitation is to correct flaws to normalcy, and that's what a flipper may do, and varies by degree.
Tuneup and Upgrade is what I pretty much do. I do the needed repairs, maintenance, and upgrade to compete with a newer market.

Around here, everyone uses "restore" as a broad term that can encompass all of the above. I know what they mean.

we need a name for people like me: old dudes who ride old bikes, who just fix them up well enough to ride them

"incontheivable"

R&R: Repair & Ride
R&R: Rebuild or Replace as necessary

Conservation: keep it in as-found condition with the only work being to stop any further deterioration (sp?) almost to the point of chasing flies away lest they drop miniature dung bombs onto it.

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.

Conservation preserves the condition of the bike. It doesn't have to be in original condition but it should arrest further deterioration and certainly does allow upgrading any of the OEM parts.

Flies,... miniature dung bombs,... lol

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. I was waiting for someone to bring the frame issue up. What all this boils down to is whether or not you consider the bike as a whole (frame fork and ALL components) or just the frame as the bike. Are you "conserving" the bike if you leave well enough alone on the frame but replace the parts as needed?

I think not. I think you have to consider the entire bike - the frame and its parts. This is where conserving and restoring can be difficult. Rubber parts rot and wear out and need to be replaced. The drive train wears out and needs replacement to maintain proper performance.

This is also why NOS parts can be expensive - they are increasingly rare and required to conserve/restore the bike. Chains, chainrings, tires, cables, even rims are a real pain, sometimes. I have been looking for a pair of rims for quite a while.

Did I mention the difficulty finding NOS riding gear like laced-leather shoes in size 48?

But it's not a reproduction. It's the actual frame that's been repainted & fitted with parts that are identical/similar to what it originally would have had.

I guess that it really doesn't matter in my case, as I have no intention of ever selling either the Merckx or the Colnago. That's probably why I initially had the Merckx built up with Campy, and the Colnago has had 5 different configurations since I've owned it. I'm finally happy with them as they are, though.

What word would you give to the kind of thing I do with bikes? I take a bike in and repair it. I replace parts as needed, and I don't pay any regard to keeping it in original condition. I make it work so that someone may ride it for commuting or recreation. Most of my changes are not upgrades, but sometimes they are.

When a bike leaves my "shop" it is in perfect running order and needs no other work.

What is this called?

A damn good service!

Aw, shucks!