Poll: Value of Restored vs. Original Condition Bikes?

[bmh]

I agree with Mikes aproach to his restoration. I may or may not have done the same, don't know till I'm in that position. All I do know is I would do what felt right by me. I personally avoid repo stuff whenever possible,but as long as it is an accurate reproduction , I don't really have a problem with that. But the patina thing.... We are starting to have a problem now with old resto work appearing and even being sold as original paint. Now imagine 30 years hence, The trouble a well done, but inaccurate, patina job could cause. Future resto work could wind up being based on someone elses work rather than that of the factory that made it. If small peices of history are not totally lost,things at least stand a good chance of becoming very confusing. Especially if there is not a lot of documentation for the make and year in question. This path I feel should be considered carefully for it's future impact on our hobby before being trod upon. My dad was into old cars, and perhaps this is part of the reason those guys put such little value on " original". Unlike them I do feel original condition bikes should be saved when possible, sometimes that might even include someones rustoleum repaint. It speaks to the history of the surviving machine.
Brian

[silentgreyfello]

I know a guy that has a 1914 harley that is painted green. He swears that it is original paint. I swear that it is not because of the color. The condition sure looks right, but why wouldn't it if the owner in 1917 wanted his 1914 to have the color of a new bike. They certainly had the technology to repaint it back then. Perhaps you could order different colors in 1914, but show me the documentation or proof first. Paint that is 93 years old has the same patina as a 90 year old re-paint. I think my point is this: unless there is a documented history or it is so obvious that it is original, then I assume it has been repainted at some point. As for the patina paint jobs (including mine), it is not that hard to tell the diffence if you study it close enough. It is impossible to cram 90 years of aging into a short period of time. Now, 60 years from now, someone will be arguing that a '72 shovelhead that was repainted in 1985 is original paint.

Is original paint worth more today, certainly to me, but I really don't think there are that many out there, even if advertised as such. Shoot, my dad started doing bodywork in the late '50's and one of his first cars that he painted for himself (1937 ford) looks like original paint to me now. In 50 years, the paint has cracked, crazed, and looks just like an original paint car. A motorcycle was/is a lot easier (and cheaper) to paint than a car, so why wouldn't a guy riding his '46 knuck give it a little love in 1952?

[miker]

The old boy who owned mine many years ago, it was last registered in 1953 I am guessing from the rusty grundgy plate that came with it , had gone through the trouble of soldering ul badges on it and painting it red..I guess he wanted the 80 cubes look but it gave me some cool garage art...

Mike

[bmh]

I agree that most of the patina stuff being done will not pass close scrutiny today, but 30 years down the road? I have also seen a few really well done jobs, that if it were not for the owners honesty on the matter, would've fooled most if not all. Artificially aging something is not that difficult, it's getting the wear patterns correct that is tricky. It takes an artful eye and attention to detail and purpose. People have been doing this and getting away with it for decades in the antique furniture game. In the end if this type of thing makes you happy then do it. I do as I please with my old " junk" as should you. I still don't care for the style and would not consider purchasing or building one.
Brian

[sludge]

1. The original condition bike is worth more, should be running condition though with at least 40% original paint left. I think most restored bikes are over restored.

2. Tough question as I don't go to many auctions or care about them because bidders tend to get too competetive and over bid by way too much....but I would guess about 25% more for the original paint.

[exeric]

Silentgreyfellow made a very good observation in stating that there probably aren't very many true original paint bikes out there. I remember going to AMCA meets back in the early 70's and even then you didn't see very many original paint/condidtion motorcycles. As I recall, the old guard of the AMCA was interested in restoration and bringing old bikes back to running condition. The exceptional original bike was revered but it had to be nice to be left un-touched. I remember two bikes in particular that were restored from very nice originals. One of them was an early Excelsior single that had nice faded original paint and a lot of good nickel without the usual wrench and chisel marks. The next time I saw it, it had chrome in place of the nickel, and plastic tape pinstriping over glossy new enamel. That was standard operating proceedure because this was considered preserving something that was in the process of decay. When I look at ebay and see the plethora of "original paint" Knuckleheads, Pans, and Chiefs I have to stand in awe at the dilligence and great respect that corn fed yokels and drug pumped hippies and bikers had for these old motorcycles by leaving them in their original condition for future generations to enjoy.

[exeric]

Oh yeah, and don't forget that every one of these original paint bikes was lovingly stored in a temperature controlled barn.