Probably 99% of the bikes out there have no special
requirements, aside from routine maintenance and a kind
owner to ride them once in a while so they don't feel
neglected.
The other one percent are special... one of Greg
Lemond's road bikes might have some historical value,
having been ridden by a well-known racer, while a bike
like Merck's Hour Record Colnago is one of a kind and
perhaps priceless. A Cinelli Laser or a Bowden
Spacelander might be of value because of unique or
interesting design. Some bikes are just
classics... a mid-60's Cinelli is certainly not one of a
kind, but it possesses the right combination of
rareness, beauty and quality to make it desirable and
worth preserving. A Schwinn Paramount or Peugeot
PX-10 might not be rare at all, yet we still like them
because they are old (and perhaps representative of a
period that we remember with fondness), and we know that
no one is ever going to build any more of them.
These bikes may differ in their particular combination
of rarity, craftsmanship, ride quality, beauty and
historical significance, but most bike lovers would
agree that they are all probably worth preserving to
some degree. To what degree exactly is where the
arguments often begin. Vintage bicycle aficionados
have opinions on bike care ranging from "ride it hard
until it falls apart" to "hang it on the wall and don't
mess with it."
I don't pretend to have any definitive answers on how to
care for a vintage bike... first of all, each bike is
different and second, I know that we all have different
expectations as to what we'd like to get out of the
vintage bike experience, as collectors, as riders, as
historians. All I'd like to do is present a few
observations and opinions of a general nature for those
who may find themselves in possession of an older bike
that they are not quite sure what to do with.
There are quite a few approaches to caring for a vintage
bike, but if one were to examine them in their simplest
terms, nearly all might fall into one of two basic
categories, "conservation" and "restoration." Conservation
could be described as protecting what's there, while
restoration might be described as an attempt to return
the bike to some previous state (in some cases, it might
even be a state that never existed for the bike in
question, but more about that in a bit). So that you
will not be misled, let me confess my personal bias up
front: In most cases I definitely favor conservation
over restoration, perhaps owing a bit to my training and
background in art, a field in which poorly executed
restorations have done considerable harm. I should add that perhaps I
tend to tilt more toward the former with frames and a
bit more toward the latter with components.
Many components are raw or chromed metal with cast or
embossed trademarks and thus lend themselves to a
makeover more readily than a painted frame with unique
and often irreplaceable graphics.
It has been my experience in dealing with works of art
that most restoration should be minimal and done with
extreme caution and care. The most significant reason
of course is the obvious one... the object might be
worth preserving, with as few alterations as possible,
for appreciation by future generations. Since repairing
a damaged finish sometimes necessitates the removal or
significant alteration of that finish, sometimes it is
best to just leave it alone rather than risk
irretrievably altering the character of the object.
Another reason I find compelling is that one can often
find beauty and charm in the visible signs of use in
objects whose original purpose was, after all, to be
used. I think worn leather is more beautiful than new
leather and I think the patina that wooden tool handles
attain after years of use is far nicer than the look of new
handles. The Japanese have a centuries-old term for
the beauty of use: "Wabi." A companion term "Sabi" refers to the
beauty of imperfect objects, or objects of humble
origin. Strictly speaking, I don't believe either term
has a literal English translation, since both are rather
inextricably entwined with Zen and the tea ceremony, but
the essence of their interpretation can certainly be
applied to vintage bikes.
Most bike restorations, even careful ones, often look
sterile and lifeless to my eyes. Worse yet, sometimes a
bike is "restored" with such zeal that it looks far
better than it did when new. Modern paint that is of
better quality and is more carefully applied than
original paint, reproduction decals that are cleaner
than the originals, overcoating to provide a more
durable finish... these are a few examples of
"over-restoration." While guaranteed to look
pretty and attract the attention of the uninitiated, it
will usually feel a bit empty and dishonest to those who
remember the imperfect charm of the original bikes as
they sat on the floor of their local bike shop in
decades past. Vintage car collectors wised up to
this years ago... the better-than-new restoration has
fallen out of favor these days while the well-preserved
original (with obvious signs of age and use) is the new
standard of excellence.
To be fair, most knowledgeable vintage bike collectors do not embark
on a heavy restoration unless the bike is quite far
gone or has already suffered a
poor quality repaint. Unfortunately, there are many newbies who view a
couple of rust spots as a personal insult and
immediately ship a valuable bike off to the painter so
that it can come back looking like the photo in the
catalog. Thankfully, peer pressure on the Classic
Rendezvous list is spreading the word and helping to
limit this practice. Too late for some bikes
unfortunately...
So if the bike is not a complete mess and you have
decided against a full-on restoration, what alternatives
are left? Depending on the state of things, let me
describe three simple approaches:
The first is by far the most tempting, and unfortunately
the potential dangers are subtle. This is when you have
a bike that is nearly perfect, decals intact with maybe
just a few rust spots or pebble hits. Here, I think one
must proceed very carefully... often one's first
instinct is to say, "Well, it's so close to perfect...
with just a little work I can make it look new." In
most cases it is obvious enough (even to the novice)
that a repaint would be criminal, as well as a needless
expense, so they just send it off to a pro for
"touchup." Sometimes this works out well, other times
the pro goes too far and removes or obscures too much
original paint or doesn't get the match right or
whatever, and the bike comes back with much of the life
gone or just looking a bit "off." Many
of us have
experienced something similar with an automobile... the
repair of a minor scratch that was not all that
noticeable to begin with ended up as an eyesore because
the paint was a slightly different color or was not
leveled or rubbed out properly. The lesson is
this: A repair that is completely invisible
requires a very high degree of skill, is expensive to
accomplish, and is not always successful.
Another way to proceed might be to take the approach
that most
conscientious "non-collector" owners would do
with their new bike as it aged and collected its
inevitable wounds... clean
off any rust, match the paint as well as you can at the
local hobby shop or auto supply store, and dab the spots
with a small sable brush. This is what I like to call
an "honest" touchup... the rust spot is stabilized, the
frame protected, the spot is less visible, but if you
look closely you can still see it. There is absolutely
no doubt that the bike is a well-cared for "all-original,"
not an attempt to recreate the new bike it once was.
One could consider this approach similar to the
restoration that is done on frescos where damaged areas
are painted with the original color, but using layers of
very fine cross-hatching. Thus the repair looks great
from far away, but up close it leaves no doubt in the
eyes of future curators what is the original work and
what is the restoration. The only caveat with this
approach is that your knowledge level does need to be
higher than the aforementioned "non-collector
owner" since most often his repairs were performed on
recent chips and scratches. If you are touching up a
spot that is not a recent blemish, you have to pay close
attention to the edges of the area during rust
removal... rust has a tendency to migrate under the
paint so you should look for loose flakes or bubbles and
attend to them carefully.
Another approach is perhaps the most minimal of all...
you can take a fine X-acto blade or some other scraping
implement (also helpful: Evapo-Rust, a small wire brush
and a 3M Spot Sanding Pen) and remove all loose rust,
then forget about the touchup paint and just give the
whole frame a few coats of wax. Wax affords quite a bit
of protection (as long as you don't ride in heavy
weather and forget to clean up afterward) and is nondestructive... unlike resprays or
touchups, wax is completely removable (with ammonia).
Actually, if the rust is not granular or bubbling, you
can even forgo the first step and just proceed with the
wax... a thin coat of rust, if it is burnished smooth,
can actually help protect the steel underneath. A good
example most of us might be familiar with is the satiny
brown patina on an old hammer or axe-head. Please don't misunderstand, I
am not advocating rust as a preservative! I'm just
saying that if you choose to stabilize the rust and then
leave it uncovered, it is not going to destroy your
bike, so long as the bike is cared for properly... this
means storing it indoors and away from rapid temperature
shifts that can cause condensation (as in an unheated garage whose
door is opened and closed repeatedly).
This "nothing but wax" technique is popular with
museums. It enhances the appearance, dust does not
accumulate as easily, and as I said, it is removable.
It has not been popular with vintage bike enthusiasts
except in the case of very old machines (the type that
might be more at home in a museum than your garage), but
is now becoming more acceptable as collectors have grown
to appreciate the patina and sense of history that some
of these old machines have.
When asked, the thing that I recommend first and most
often to anyone contemplating a restoration is to just
ride the bike for now, put off any irreversible action and take
some time. Sometimes it takes quite a while for a bike to
speak to you and for you to drink in all its details and
decide which defects are objectionable and which are
acceptable (or even endearing). Many folks are
surprised when I tell them I kept my
Masi Special for
nearly two years before doing any work at all on it.
All I did was tighten the crank bolts,
adjust the brakes and
take it for an occasional ride. And look at it of
course (a lot), patiently considering how to proceed. As
the months passed, I not only
learned quite a bit about restoration in general terms but I
also witnessed significant changes in regard to how I
viewed this particular bike. As it stands now, my
approach to fixing it up would probably fall somewhere
between #2 and #3 above (hand touchup on a few of the larger rust
spots... under the BB, a spot on the top
tube and one under the shift lever clamp), then an
all-over cleaning and waxing for the rest. The bike is
pretty battle-scarred but still I have grown to admire
and respect what it has been thru. Even if it were in
worse shape than it is I don't think it would bother me
one bit to leave it pretty much untouched, just so long
as I was certain that any corrosion was stabilized so as
not to go any further.
More and more, when someone writes to me asking for
advice on the direction they should take in caring for
their old Masi, I am seeing phrases like "preserving
the patina" and "keeping it original" and
"responsibilities of stewardship." This is quite an
encouraging trend. I wish more people would stop and
think that they are probably not going to be the last
owner of that bicycle. Whenever I think about doing
something to a vintage bike, I first
ask myself why I am doing it:
Is it to please some inner vanity, a desire for order,
neatness, perfection, or beauty? Or worse, to
enhance its value in the eyes of a potential buyer?
Or is it to protect the bike from degradation and
decay?
If it is the former, I always think twice and I always
ask myself if what I am about to do is reversible...
once an original finish is gone, you can't get
it back. If the action is reversible or nondestructive,
like a coat of wax or polishing the chrome, I'll go
ahead. Anything else, I think about long and hard.
But if it is protection from degradation and decay, then
I tend to be more aggressive... I know that if I do not
act, the bike will suffer because something on it is
going to rust, break, fade, flake, or wear. In a case
like that I will feel more free (or even obligated) to
get out a bottle of touchup paint or perhaps put a
protective coat over
a flaking and non-reproducible decal.
So in the very simplest terms, I guess the first question one should ask
is, are our actions to be for the benefit of ourselves
or the bicycle?
Some might argue the point, but for me it is this one
question that most often determines the dividing line
between restoration and conservation.