[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

[Chuck Saunders]

My grandfathers' axe was the best axe I ever had. I did have to replace 
the handle 3 times and the head once, but boy, that axe could cut.

Chuck Saunders
Kansas City, MO

Spencer Yost wrote:

>*********** 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
>
>  
>