[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

Wed Jan 19 15:46:26 PST 2005

I don't mean to imply that we should follow the lead of the collector car 
crowd or push our hobby in that direction but they more or less set the 
standard by which "vehicle" restoration is judged.

It is perfectly acceptable to put a reproduction part or a fabricated part 
on a collector car if you can't find a new old stock part or a used part of 
acceptable quality.  However, the judges can tell it's not original and they 
deduct points when the car is judged.

I think that in a less formal manner that is what is happening or will 
happen in our hobby.  You could build a tractor around a few parts or even a 
serial # plate and folks would judge it by the quality of workmanship but it 
wouldn't fool many folks that really know that particular brand and model of 
tractor.  A new casting made in someone's shop would not have all the 
casting marks or even the same defects as the new one would.

My thinking is that if you own it, you want to fix it, you have the skill to 
fix it and the money to fix it, then go for it.  Someone that goes to the 
trouble of building molds to cast new major parts is not going to try and 
pass it off as original.  If they did they wouldn't be able to brag about 
their work.

Charlie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grant Brians" <gbrians at hollinet.com>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> 