Seeing all these amazingly original old Greeves from Australia on the forum recently has prompted me to think about the age old question...whether to 'restore' or whether to 'preserve'?
When a bike is in such an original and 'unmolested' condition, it seems a shame to remove (destroy?) all that lovely 'patina', honestly earned in the course of an eventful (and sometimes hard!) life. After all, they can only be 'original' once!
Whilst there is no denying the attraction and appeal of a beautifully restored Greeves (they look so good when they've been done 'right') for myself, a lovingly preserved and well used example equally has it's own charms as well. It's interesting to see the sort of prices people are willing to pay in the auctions these days for the original 'patinated' (?) machines, which supports the notion that these bikes are indeed much sought after and highly prized in their own right.
Of course, some bikes are so 'far gone' that the only recourse is a full restoration. But I sometimes wonder if we are seeing a move away from the 'shiny' bikes perhaps, and a trend towards well preserved 'originality'?
Of course, another view is that these bikes are ideal for actually riding, and in all weathers too! Many owners speak of the increased levels of enjoyment they get out of their bikes when there are no concerns with scratching expensive paint and chrome. It does seem a shame to me personally when I hear someone say something along the lines of 'it turned out so nice it's too good to use in anger'.
I fully acknowledge and appreciate that for some owners the pleasure comes from other interests as their riding days are sadly behind them, and it's always a treat to see those beautifully restored machines at the shows. The 'show bikes' do a wonderful job without a doubt, in raising awareness and interest in our wonderful motorcycling heritage. Then there are the 'historic' bikes, priceless and important peices of real history, but are they the same thing when all those dabs of scrutineers paint have been powdercoated over? I know that some feel that they become in a way 'replicas' of what they are 'supposed' to be. Then there are the increasing examples of 'fakery' coming up, where bikes have been given an 'artificial' patina! This has been happening for some years in the classic guitar world, with highly skilled (but unscrupulous) restorers turning their hands to 'unrestoration' techniques in an effort to make money...When a 'good' 1959 Gibson 'Les Paul' Sunburst can fetch way upwards of £60,000 (
) these days you can see why it happens....
In any event, I feel that what anyone decides to do with their machine is of course completely up to them, and may it always be so! I just thought it might be an interesting debate to air on the forum and see what other members think about it....
Any takers?
Brian.
When a bike is in such an original and 'unmolested' condition, it seems a shame to remove (destroy?) all that lovely 'patina', honestly earned in the course of an eventful (and sometimes hard!) life. After all, they can only be 'original' once!
Whilst there is no denying the attraction and appeal of a beautifully restored Greeves (they look so good when they've been done 'right') for myself, a lovingly preserved and well used example equally has it's own charms as well. It's interesting to see the sort of prices people are willing to pay in the auctions these days for the original 'patinated' (?) machines, which supports the notion that these bikes are indeed much sought after and highly prized in their own right.
Of course, some bikes are so 'far gone' that the only recourse is a full restoration. But I sometimes wonder if we are seeing a move away from the 'shiny' bikes perhaps, and a trend towards well preserved 'originality'?
Of course, another view is that these bikes are ideal for actually riding, and in all weathers too! Many owners speak of the increased levels of enjoyment they get out of their bikes when there are no concerns with scratching expensive paint and chrome. It does seem a shame to me personally when I hear someone say something along the lines of 'it turned out so nice it's too good to use in anger'.
I fully acknowledge and appreciate that for some owners the pleasure comes from other interests as their riding days are sadly behind them, and it's always a treat to see those beautifully restored machines at the shows. The 'show bikes' do a wonderful job without a doubt, in raising awareness and interest in our wonderful motorcycling heritage. Then there are the 'historic' bikes, priceless and important peices of real history, but are they the same thing when all those dabs of scrutineers paint have been powdercoated over? I know that some feel that they become in a way 'replicas' of what they are 'supposed' to be. Then there are the increasing examples of 'fakery' coming up, where bikes have been given an 'artificial' patina! This has been happening for some years in the classic guitar world, with highly skilled (but unscrupulous) restorers turning their hands to 'unrestoration' techniques in an effort to make money...When a 'good' 1959 Gibson 'Les Paul' Sunburst can fetch way upwards of £60,000 (
) these days you can see why it happens.... In any event, I feel that what anyone decides to do with their machine is of course completely up to them, and may it always be so! I just thought it might be an interesting debate to air on the forum and see what other members think about it....
Any takers?
Brian.
) 
Comment