First, usually I am against restoration, I like patina and it is only original once. But in the case of this bike, the paint is shot, it is my wife's bike and she wants it pretty, and with a serial # of 46,594, I am fairly certain there are originals out there to serve as "real" examples.

The bike "is" silver with green "flames" at most of the lugs (it is hard to see in the picture, but they are there). So yesterday and today I have been very carefully measuring and making tape templates of the flames. As expected, since this is a factory bike, the flames aren't "perfect". Their length varies as much as 10 mm and their width varies as much as 3 mm. Not bad for eye-balling it but clearly they were never measured before the paint went down.

So do I reproduce the paint exactly like it came out of the shop or do I make it "perfect" by evening out the lengths and widths?

Which then begs the larger question - The "best" restorations are always better craftsmanship than when it originally comes out of the factory. Is it appropriate to have the restoration "better" than the original?

Sure, on bikes. Not so sure, on Corvettes.

But...it is pretty!

I'm fairly certain you read the CR list occasionally? Some good threads to mull over:

https://search.bikelist.org/query.asp...SortBy=MsgDate[a]

https://search.bikelist.org/query.asp...SortBy=MsgDate[a]

Do you plan on having it painted professionally? Brian Baylis posted a lengthy commentary on what painters face in terms of customer expectations:

https://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.as...10911.0695.eml

My take: do what you think you and/or your wife would like, and don't stress over the minor details of originality, because it will not be original paint.

Ive never restored a bike...however I used to make a liveing restoreing cars and motorcycles

When I first started I was Dead Set against doing anything that wasnt original...in other words I wanted showroom quality vehicals

Well then I started to change when I realized that sometimes new stuff on something older sometimes gave people fewer headaches and they were in the end happier....

in other words....how do you think the paint should be?

If your gonna flip it...make the same mistakes as the factory so that a real collector wont have anything to whine about...

If your gonna keep it...paint it your way...measure it out and do it right

or skip the flames and go hot pink with lime green accents...a handcart wheel up front and a 20" in the rear....

it is your (well wifes) bike after all

it is a lovely bike btw

Doug in sunny iowa

The paint may "shot" on that, but the overall effect is still very nice. I think a restoration no matter how good, or how accurate, would end up being a dissapoinment for that frame

I say that having done similar, and wishing I could go back in time and have not.

This may be presumptious, but I doubt your wife really cares that it is a Gloria and would probably be happy with any vintage ladies frame with fresh paint job and some cool detailing? I understand her not seeing the beauty in this frame as-is, but that does not mean it should be altered to suit if there's other options.

But to your original question. I feel that restorations should be made to the level of the restorer, which is going to be a much higher standard than the original. But with that said the effect of the materials should be the same or close to the original. I do not want to see orange peel, but I do not want to see layers of clear either. Decals and striping should always be above the paint as well.

If you are going to Restore a bicycle, do it and do not depart from original. But that is really expensive and not really wise for a bicycle that will be ridden on a regular basis. My opinion, of course.

That said and with that in mind, I like to restore a bicycle for Street Use. I do not like to spend an arm and a leg to get an old bicycle on the road. My guess is that your wife's Gloria would best suit her needs and interests all prettied and tuned up. So, were I you, I would clean and paint the bike anyway she wanted - with in reason, of course.

As for the patina, it is original but is it presentable? Only you (perhaps your wife will have a say also) can answer that question. For my money at this point in my bicycle Street Restoration career (never fully restored a bicycle), I would say that the paint is kinda far gone. But that is just me.

I have been fighting this similar question/concern on my Casati Gold Line S. Large sections of paint were scraped away by a motorcycle chain used by the previous owner. He used it for commuting, and the rear triangle is rough. I considered repainting the entire bike, but have reconsidered after several unsuccessful practice attempts by local painters to get this right. I spoke with a local builder, and we have now decided to just do the rear triangle, along with the decals and clear coat. I just cannot stand clear coat over the scrapes to protect from rust. She is far too beautiful to let her go without a fight.

This is the best option for me, although I'm certain I could find others that would advise against this action. Owners have to decide for themselves, knowing that value will likely be impacted. I ride all of my bikes though, and I want them to look presentable, so I'll take the chance.

While I somewhat agree, I don't know why. The flames for example, the one on the right is 10 mm longer than the one on the left. You are physically unable to see them together so up until I posted this, I was the only person in the world to know they weren't even. It actually makes no difference if they are even or not but I guarantee any restorer would probably even them out. That is the point I don't like about restorations, you loose that original information.

After cleaning frame, I would judge the paint not to be completely gone, although it is close to that edge. The components on the other hand are shot and are in desparate need of new chrome. The handlebars are not even the worst of it. What I dislike even more than a restoration is a bike where some of it is restored and some is not. I will never find correct parts in the correct state of preservation for this frame and if I restore the parts I have, I made the decision to redo the paint too.

The bike won't get flipped and will definately be a rider. But more of a Sunday-going-to-church type of bike. I'm thinking about getting a nice U. Dei citybike for myself to match.

Iab,

As soon as I saw your wife's bike I thought of this VW Beetle which I love!! https://www.oldbug.com/ferjab.htm

Patina and gloss, with the right pieces CAN work!! Not everyone's cup of tea but I dig it.

vjp

Oh, that Beetle ROCKS!

I guess my take on this topic goes back to something I read a while ago - there's a difference between a restoration and a renovation. I think of a restoration as being an attempt to make the item (bike, car, whatever) being restored approximate as closely as possible the way it looked when it came off the showroom floor. All original parts, original colors, original accessories, etc. If you're doing a restoration, you don't have a lot of wiggle room on this stuff.

On the other hand, a renovation involves no such devotion to authenticity. Renovating a bike (or car, or whatever) allows you the freedom to do whatever suits your fancy - install alloy wheels if you like! Put a Schwinn saddle on a Rudge if you like the way it looks and feels! Have the frame painted paisley, if it suits your mood! The only limits are your budget, your personal sense of taste, and the use to which you intend to put the object of your renovation.

Of course, this definitional distinction is entirely arbitrary, but that's generally true of most definitions.

These things always fall into that catagory of "it depends" as far as I'm concerned. If you were talking about a complete high-end bike with all original components that YOU were going to ride I might be inclinded to say preserve it as is...but I take it you're building a nice vintage step-through frame city bike and your wife would like for it to look nice. So...paint it and if you like, reproduce the uneven green "flames". I would generally say that when having a bike repainted I would try to reproduce the best of what could have been on a good day at the factory. In other words, I wouldn't try to reproduce the specific imperfections of this particular bike but neither would I want to over restore the paint job to the point that it could never have come out of the factory that way. Pretty vague I know. And even that isn't for always the way I would go. If the bike in question were special in some way - like a bike that I had owned since it was new or one with special provenance - then I might reproduce the imperfections. So who knows? In this case just make it look nice. I know if I tried to explain all of the reasons discussed here as to why I was reproducing defects in the paint job my wife would just roll her eyes and shake her head.

I think you are on the right path. If you are going to rechrome the components then new paint makes sense. I guess it would be nice to paint it exactly how it was with the imperfect lengths but I think I would want it measured and perfect.

Do you have a picture of the whole bike or are you saving that for later?

+1 to mkeller, with one exception - if it were me, and I was repainting, I'd want to keep the feel of the original with new materials - clearly the flames were "eyeballed" originally, so I'd not want them to be exactly the same after repainting.....imagine yourself showing the bike off to a fellow C&Ver in 6 months time: scenario a: "well, originally the flames were hand painted and inconsistent side to side, but I fixed that" vs. scenario b: "well, originally the flames were inconsistent side to side and I tried to reflect that in the repaint"....I prefer scenario B.....

I would not however go to the extent of some of my fellow motorcycling restorers, who tried to reproduce the factory paint drips, or molding flies into italian fibreglass because one famous bike had that originally.....

I'd be tempted to just clear coat it as is. Someone good could probably cut the gloss a bit so it didn't look too shiny, but still make the finish appear intentional instead of beaten.

Lots of people pay big money to have distressed finishes put on their walls. It's just a matter of perspective.