[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

two4ac at earthlink.net two4ac at earthlink.net
Wed Jan 19 08:05:01 PST 2005


I used to think that everything had to be "Just like it was from the 
factory."  Now I have eased up.  I figure it's A) It's my tractor.  I should 
enjoy it however I want, and B) Farmers made many modifications to their 
tractors so who is to say what is a correct representation.  I'm with John 
on this one.  Good friends and good tractors, who could ask for more?

David D. Gibson
1941 Allis Chalmers B
1942 Allis Chalmers C
1947 Allis Chalmers C
1948 Allis Chalmers C
1972 Allis Chalmers Homesteader
----- 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 7:42 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 




More information about the AT mailing list