"Restoration" in my mind is a repaint, complete refurbish of the major parts of the bike being chrome, paint etc. The term is used rather loosely by many. I consider a "detailing" or a partial refurbish of existing finish, paint and chrome, rubber etc., not a restoration. Even replacement of certain parts ( seat, pedals, grips, tires) are not really a full restoration, but part of a ( perhaps being partially resto'd) freshening up of a nice original bicycle. Of course everyone will have a different opinion of these terms and idea on what is correct.
I've been in the hobby over 30 years and don't consider myself an expert on anything, but agree that an original bicycle ( only detailed/cleaned up/perhaps made more correct with proper parts) holds more appeal/value than a total restoration.
I've done both on quite a few bikes over many years. Original will always be original. If this seller was overly optimistic on value in asking price, so be it. It's easier to come down in $$ than go up. I think the comment about post war bikes having a $2000.00 ceiling is laughable ( comment #20). How about an original Bowden?...minty Krates. Killer original Panthers, Phantoms, Colorflows, Radiobikes... etc. and on..and on..and on... Just my 2 cents. ( or 1.5 cents being Canadian and having a lower dollar)
Cheers,
Bobby Nashman/Nash
