[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

[Grant Brians]

Restoration is by necessity the process of making usable something that in
some way was no longer fully usable. This would apply to a document that has
a part of the paper decaying, a film that the stock is losing some quality
(parts of the picture or soundtrack, ability to stay together or perhaps
becoming chemically unstable) or a steam engine from the early days. If the
item is restored to the way it was and is marked or referred to as such then
it is a restoration. But... then the discussion begins as to whether it is
still original.
    So, perhaps we can discuss the abstract versus practical and in the end
come to some sort of consensus but I would bet that it will be a moving
consensus, not a static one.
         Grant Brians
        Hollister, California
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jfgrant" <jfgrant at triton.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: [AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy


> Restoration or manufacture?
> Well I don't think there can be a final answer to this question.
>  If there are absolutely no part available at all then is one just
supposed
> to forget about the unit and do nothing because the "correct police" will
> case aspersions? I think not.
> If spare parts are available but beyond the recourses of the "restorer",
> should one forget about the project and do nothing for the same reason's
as
> above? Again, I think not.
>
> The reason's for a restoration/rebuild project are many and wide. It's
their
> unit and project. If one does not approve then go away and keep quiet
unless
> one is ready to put some money where their mouth is.
> In my opinion, the reason most of us are in this game is because  (1) It's
> fun, (2) we enjoy the friends we make and meet here, (3) we enjoy the work
> and reward of a personal nature, (4) it's part of our heritage, (5) and on
&
> on.
> Just my thoughts. If it feels good, DO IT!  John Grant
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Spencer Yost" <yostsw at atis.net>
> To: <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy
>
>
> >
> > *********** 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  AT mailing list
>  http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>