I certainly don't want to re-ignite the long and pointless arguments on restored bikes vs Original bikes vs period bikes and so on, but it seems to me that a few of the threads over the past weeks have perpetuated misconceptions about restored bikes and the purpose of building them.
First, as much as I revere The French Owl (Patrick) and his immense knowledge, if I read his post correctly, it appears to me he has it wrong. No one seriously restoring a bike wants to alter the original finish of the cases or frame or anyy other part for that matter. In most of our hierarchies, original bikes trump restored bikes (Magneto's 1960 XLH, to wit). When restoring a bike, everyone I know searches out original parts with orginal finish. The only time I, or anyone I know, would alter, say, the sandcast finish on a cam cover is when it has been polished beyond recognition and we are attempting to bring it back as close to stock as possible. No one I know would paint over original paint unless it was a hopelessly damaged part. In fact, there is a constant search for better ways to clean parts while preserving the original castings.
More importantly, it seems the purpose of restoring a bike is being misconstrued. Dr. Dick often writes about preserving knowledge and know-how, and I'm all for this, and in this regard a properly restored bike falls right in line. Restored bikes serve as a physical encyclopedia of what the bike looked like when it came off the factory floor, or at least as close to that state as the builder can get it. It would be ridiculous to suggest that all bikes or even most bikes should be restored, but the properly restored bike exists as a reference for the rest of us, a way to measure both how far our bikes are from stock and how close to stock we would like them to be.
As for this criticism of modern paints, it's simply a matter of how you intend to use the bike. Whatever your bike, you probably don't want to put an inferior finish on it. Would you criticize someone because the paint job on their non-restored bike is too nice? I personally prefer period single stage enamels on restored bikes, but it is totally reasonable for a guy that wants to ride his restored bike while keeping it looking as good as possible to use the more durable modern base coat, clear coat products, (although I would argue that a restored bike should avoid a modern gloss finish.)
And yes, it can get anal. But if I'm going to restore a bike, I'm going to do it to the best of my abilities, and that means using correct circle F bolts and CP 1038 bolts where ever possible. That's the entire point of a restoration. If I have a non-restored bike and want to compare it to restored bike, the standard shall we say, then I want that restored bike to be a proper reference. Furthermore, if someone like Murph or Magneto convinces me that a certain part on bike that is cad plated should be parkerized, I'm going to remove that part asap and drop it in the soup.
None of this takes anything away from "Specials" as Patrick calls his bikes. It's not a case of either-or. I admire period correct bikes like Snow's, replica racer's like PBRs, Monte's period stroker, and of course Patricks "specials." I even like some choppers. On the other hand, I also like my restorations, and I want them to be "correct" as the term is used in serious motorcycle restoration. I believe the entire community benefits from a tangible standard, and that means early bikes that are as "correct" as the builder can get them.
A final note--there are definitely over-restored bikes. The term is common currency in restoration community. But from what I've seen, the over-restored bikes are most often not correct in the sense that the paint looks wrong and parts are mismatched. I saw several of this sort at a local museum this year, and I remember wincing at the Sportster in the Birmingham, AL museum a few years back, but pointing at these bikes an using them as criticism of restored bikes is an oxymoron.
First, as much as I revere The French Owl (Patrick) and his immense knowledge, if I read his post correctly, it appears to me he has it wrong. No one seriously restoring a bike wants to alter the original finish of the cases or frame or anyy other part for that matter. In most of our hierarchies, original bikes trump restored bikes (Magneto's 1960 XLH, to wit). When restoring a bike, everyone I know searches out original parts with orginal finish. The only time I, or anyone I know, would alter, say, the sandcast finish on a cam cover is when it has been polished beyond recognition and we are attempting to bring it back as close to stock as possible. No one I know would paint over original paint unless it was a hopelessly damaged part. In fact, there is a constant search for better ways to clean parts while preserving the original castings.
More importantly, it seems the purpose of restoring a bike is being misconstrued. Dr. Dick often writes about preserving knowledge and know-how, and I'm all for this, and in this regard a properly restored bike falls right in line. Restored bikes serve as a physical encyclopedia of what the bike looked like when it came off the factory floor, or at least as close to that state as the builder can get it. It would be ridiculous to suggest that all bikes or even most bikes should be restored, but the properly restored bike exists as a reference for the rest of us, a way to measure both how far our bikes are from stock and how close to stock we would like them to be.
As for this criticism of modern paints, it's simply a matter of how you intend to use the bike. Whatever your bike, you probably don't want to put an inferior finish on it. Would you criticize someone because the paint job on their non-restored bike is too nice? I personally prefer period single stage enamels on restored bikes, but it is totally reasonable for a guy that wants to ride his restored bike while keeping it looking as good as possible to use the more durable modern base coat, clear coat products, (although I would argue that a restored bike should avoid a modern gloss finish.)
And yes, it can get anal. But if I'm going to restore a bike, I'm going to do it to the best of my abilities, and that means using correct circle F bolts and CP 1038 bolts where ever possible. That's the entire point of a restoration. If I have a non-restored bike and want to compare it to restored bike, the standard shall we say, then I want that restored bike to be a proper reference. Furthermore, if someone like Murph or Magneto convinces me that a certain part on bike that is cad plated should be parkerized, I'm going to remove that part asap and drop it in the soup.
None of this takes anything away from "Specials" as Patrick calls his bikes. It's not a case of either-or. I admire period correct bikes like Snow's, replica racer's like PBRs, Monte's period stroker, and of course Patricks "specials." I even like some choppers. On the other hand, I also like my restorations, and I want them to be "correct" as the term is used in serious motorcycle restoration. I believe the entire community benefits from a tangible standard, and that means early bikes that are as "correct" as the builder can get them.
A final note--there are definitely over-restored bikes. The term is common currency in restoration community. But from what I've seen, the over-restored bikes are most often not correct in the sense that the paint looks wrong and parts are mismatched. I saw several of this sort at a local museum this year, and I remember wincing at the Sportster in the Birmingham, AL museum a few years back, but pointing at these bikes an using them as criticism of restored bikes is an oxymoron.