[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

[Spencer Yost]

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
On 1/17/2005 at 9:01 PM Guy Fay wrote:
>I know that the last time I posted one of these, that some of you 
>sniffed that casting new parts wasn't a REAL restoration. So you don't 
>have to click the links if you don't want to. Everybody else-Craig 
>Anderson's put up some pages about the restoration of a Mogul 45 that 
>came out of a river bank.
>http://www.andersonofrosholt.com/17501.html
>

Guy's post begs the question:  "What has to be left of the original tractor
for the process of refurbishment to be called 'a restoration of an original
tractor?'"  If engine or frame is gone, is this no longer a restoration but
the manufacture of a replica?   Do you _have_ to use used parts?  If all
that is left is the serial number tag, is that sufficient to call it a
restoration of an original tractor?.

In other words we all have included some used, some new and some
Metal-shop/foundry/home made parts in a restoration.   Where is the line
crossed from "a restoration of an original tractor" into "making a replica
of an original tractor"?.

I have wanted to start this discussion, and Guy's post gives me the chance.

Spencer Yost
Owner, ATIS
Plow the Net!
http://www.atis.net