[AT] Was Serious Restoration Now philosophy

[Guy Fay]

Spencer,
I think to some degree it depends on the project you are working on and 
the standards that you use. I think putting a V-8 into a Farmall M (to 
use a extreme example) isn't a restoration. I think if you are 
faithfully reproducing parts on a project in which original parts simply 
can't be found, it can be a restoration. I don't know if there's a 
standard or hard and fast rule.

 From a historic preservation standpoint, one important factor is to 
document what you've done, so someone in the furture can tell what's 
original, what isn't, so that there isn't a creep throughout history of 
what actually happened. A good case in point is decals. IH changed the 
names on decals from McCormick-Deering to IH-McCormick Deering, then to 
IH-McCormick, in the span of the production of the Farmall M, for 
instance. Farmers got their tractors repainted, and got the newer 
decals. Then through the years, the sons and daughters forgot that this 
replacement happened, so now a lot of people think that the newer decals 
were what was on the tractor when it came off the line, and it just 
isn't so.

There's some bad parts being produced these days, and some good parts. 
Maybe the best way is to keep your receipts, show what's been done with 
the tractor, and pass it along to new owners. Have a display board that 
you show with.

I remember seeing a early variant of a P-51 at Oshkosh many years ago. 
It had essentially been built around a serial number plate. But the guy 
brought the photographs, explained the process. Maybe it wasn't a 
restoration, maybe it was, but it was definitly the only flying example 
of that variant left, and I think it was worth the effort.

That's kind of where some of these early tractors are at. If kids are 
going to be able to see these things, these huge efforts are neccessary. 
The big old stuff doesn't trailer real well, and having a few of these 
spread out around the country is the way for folks to see them. I've 
driven one of the Type As described on another of Craig's webpages, 
and.....it's an expierience to be savored.

Even if you consider these to be re-creations rather than restorations, 
the man-hours and effort that goes into these tractors is enough to make 
them signifigant. The guys that are involved in these restorations do 
make every effort to use original parts, because original parts are 
still going to be cheaper than patterns, castings, and machining. But 
sometimes, it just isn't possible. There's one IH tractor model that has 
about 1/10th of a tractor surviving, basically most of the engine. The 
owner isn't real convinced that he's going to pursue that project, but 
in case he finds the rest of it.....8)

Not to mention that there's several IH tractor models that were 
essentially preproduction tractors sold to the public, but that no known 
example survives. The Mogul 20-40 does have some historical 
signifigance, and I would like to see one recreated some day. Limited 
engineering drawings exist, maybe? One of the Steward tractors would be 
nice, since they sort of lead the way to the Farmall, but I've only seen 
photographs. A Deering 30-60, just for the pure insanity of that model- 
there's three photos of that one. The Waite? Streamlined tractor in 
1914. One photograph.

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
>
>
>  
>