Poll: Value of Restored vs. Original Condition Bikes?

[INLINE4NUT]

all I can say is Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Eric @ B.O.S]

My opinion is it's only original once! Restoring a bike that has sufficient amount of original parts and patina to "better than new" condition is a crime! Also, "restoring" doesn't necessarly mean shiny new, at least not to me. You can restore a bike while maintaining it's original patina.

But the fact is, bikes with patina are very rare, so in alot of cases you don't really have a choice. You either have to restore to "new" condition because your project has had all of it's parts chromed, parts are incomplete, incorrect year, or maybe you are even piecing it together. And in most cases, that's excatly why bikes are restored to new condition.

I think most people who get their hands on a bike that is mostly complete and original will leave it that way. At least that's what I would do and I think that's what most people in the club would do.
Eric MATHIEU

[Pete Gagan]

I have to jump in here and give my opinion, which differs from everyone elses, in all likelyhood.
First of all, Herb, the machine you describe is not in "original condition". The original condition would be the state it was in when it went into the shed, not when it came out- in other words, the condition it was in when last used. Some of the rusty wrecks we worship as original would never be used by their original riders in that condition. With the patina restoration methods that are available now, it may be possible to make it look like it did when planted in the shed if that's your thing.
On the other hand, over restoration as you describe is not good- ie lots of clear coat paint, etc. A perfect restoration of that theoretical '08 Harley would have coach enamel, hand done striping, (less than perfect, no doubt), and several coats of varnish on top. Plating would likely be barrel type nickel, cheap and nasty without a lot of polishing.
Back to my description of the perfect motorcycle- it should be as close as possible to what a well cared for example would have looked like in the first year of its life, original or restored. As to replacement parts- as long as they are exact copies, made the same way as the originals, and indistinguishable from original, fair enough.
Just one old guy's opinion.
Pete Gagan

[Ohio-Rider]

This is getting to be a very interesting thread indeed.
Isn’t it strange how many opinions there are about the same topic?
Pete… Thanks for jumping in here. I enjoyed your article in the summer issue. You ended your article with your description of a “perfect old motorcycle”. Your description does sets a rather high standard to meet.
I agree that we as AMCA members should keep a high standard, and be considered the Final Word when antique motorcycles are being discussed around the world. -Those are my words not Pete’s.-
Just a couple quick questions and I’ll stop my running at the mouth.
1)- Do you agree/disagree with this “patina approach” on antique cycles?
2)-Do you believe there are any “original condition” motorcycles which are ridden weekly .?
3)-Should the AMCA point system be used for determining the value of a motorcycle .?
Anyway Pete, Your doing a great service for us all, so Thank You.
General opinions anyone…….?
Steve J Walko

[Barry Brown]

AMCA point system determining the value of a motorcycle!! Even though this is a preposterous suggestion I believe it already exists for "in tune" buyers whether we agree it is ethical or not.

[scd]

So here's another couple questions. I'm wondering if "original" is different than "original condition" . It seems to me when we talk about a bike being orginal, we're referring to it's individual parts as being original equipment, not reproduced at a later date. So would we reserve the term "original condition" for how the bike should look in it's first year or two of use?

And speaking of reproduction parts, here's my second question.
If you have two identical appearing parts, one is documented to be antique, the other we are told is reproduction, are there differences in their value? There usually are differences in the market place, again, thinking of the rarity factor. But when placed on a bike as part of the whole, how do they affect the value (both dollar and historical) of the motorcycle.
Thanks, Steve

[Barry Brown]

this is a giant can of worms we are opening here. How about this hypothetical situation. Say an early vee twin racer is converted to a single cylinder so that it can race in that category when it is only a couple of years old. Say this is documented with possibly other deviations from it's "original" configuration and performed extremely well as such. Now a 'restorer" comes along recently and puts it back to it's "original" condition adding the 'missing" cylinder and "fixing" the frame. When the bike is AMCA judged a few of the judges know of these changes but the bike is a potential 99 point resto as presented . Does history win out here , points deducted and the owner reprimanded for deviating from the credo of the club ? Or do we as a club care that much about such mundane things as history? Wait a minute, I thought our club was all about preserving history, not re writing it.
It's not just racers that suffer these indignities. Several large un named museums seem to like everything shiney, road or race. I would say that "wheels through time " has the right approach to preserving history.

[jurassic]

parhams henderson

.

[Barry Brown]

That is BEAUTIFUL. Is that original paint or an old repaint and how would you tell and does it matter if knowbody can? We are in the realm of rolling art here, picture galleries worldwide struggle with the agonizing thought that some of their old world master's paintings are fakes, probaby due to the millions laid out to purchase. If THEY
can't tell original paint from non how can we? Maybe our judges should have portable x ray machines. Contrary to popular belief some very old repaints were done spot on as original. My 36 Indian four has 39 world's fair paint and it looks 100% original, so good it has been suggested it was sent back to the factory for this, an unlikely scenario I would think. Maybe a dealer or a local craftsman.

Kudos to Parham for preserving this mouth watering work of art.

[aka HAWG]

I decided to jump into this thread to get all your input

first see photo in the pre 16 motorcycle under 1914 excelsior single

the bike ( to my knowledge ) appears to be original paint, can still make out alot of the pin stripping on frame and forks - but appears to be a greenish paint not the excelsior grey, the nickel plating is gone in most areas but visable in some, even has original era tires.

I have had to replace ( with repop ) the idler assembly, need to replace a few spokes, have to make gas and oil caps,lines, brake rods, control rods etc

my plan is to keep in the original state you see in the photo, what classification would you put on this - original?? partial restore?? what???

this is not a rendering to deceave as original, but has to have some new parts added to complete for use

any comments appeciated

aka hawg

[Buzz K]

There's a market for both machines - "original" and "restored" and both would pay good money for the kind of bike you described.

So what happens if we move the mark from 1908 to say 1965 - still considered a classic. I suspect you could sell an overly restored button start FL Panhead for more then an original paint one. Too bad, as I also am of the belief that the original and unrestored one has more value. Many disagree, although many of them might not be AMCA members.

[Pete Gagan]

One point I forgot to make when I was sounding off a couple of days ago, is that a lot of "original paint" bikes are actually old restorations. Don't forget, the hobby is not new- our club was founded in 1954, and there was the odd restoration of very high quality being done back then, some of which may have ended up in a shed. To illustrate, I began "restoring" bikes in 1956 at the age of 16. My first resorations were pretty crude, but I did my first on in 1962 on an Indian 4 which I acquired in boxes for $40.00. I was VP of the Indian 4 club then, and had a lot of help from my older friends, and it turned out pretty well. All parts were NOS, because that's all that was available then.

[Pete Gagan]

Continued.. Hankering for something faster, I swapped it for a Vincent Black Shadow with 5000 miles on the clock. I rode that Indian into the Vincent owner's shed, put it on the sidestand, and there it sat untill the owner died over 40 years later. The bike changed hands a couple of times untill a friend bought it, and announced he'd bought an original paint bike. As the new owner and the seller both honestly believed it was, who was I to spoil their story?

[INLINE4NUT]

Pete,would it ruin their story???? I think not and it would be best to know the truth in my opinion. Your story seems better than someone living a lie!

[exeric]

As Barry Brown stated, it's a "giant can of worms we are opening". The real artists are the people counterfeiting aged motorcycles. I personally know of quite a few bikes that are fakes but I must add that I know they are fakes because the people who did them openly admitted it. Of coarse, that is honorable and above board but the next owner may not be so honorable and may misrepresent the bike. For me this is not much of an issue because as an average wage earner I'm WAY priced out of this game and it doesn't break my heart when some ill informed rich guy pays stupid money for a fake. However, it's still not right to cheat someone.