Restoration vs Replica, where do we draw the line?

[fang]

An interesting conversation was started in another thread and I would like to continue it here: The question was implied, "is this a restoration or a replica," and I think this is an excellent discussion for this board. I am very interested in the consensus opinion of this community.

So, where is the line drawn regarding the use of replica parts on a restoration? We all have oogled the gorgeous Yamiya parts. Some of us have sprung the big bucks for them to be shipped from Japan. Are they reproduction parts? Of course they are; they are very nice, extremely correct reproductions. For our sandcasts, I wonder exactly where does the line lie between restoration and replica? Does the use of Yamiya (or other brand) parts make an otherwise perfect sandcast restoration a replica? Yes ...no?

At some point the answer must become yes -- with enough reproduction parts the bike would be considered a replica, and not a 'pure' restoration. Is a set of side covers and an air box enough? What about a set of $1500 repo pipes, or a new ducktail seat with just enough slack in the cover? This is a philosophical question, one of metaphysical pursuit. The question probes into the essence of being and how it 'grows.'

Consider Theseus' ship:

Quote:The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one group holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
—Plutarch, Theseus
 

As parts are removed and replaced, when does the vessel loose its identity? Thomas Hobbes wen on to ask, What if the old, damaged parts are collected and reassembled, which is the more authentic vessel?

Likewise, consider John Locke's socks:
He has a favorite sock, the likes of which he would wear every day if he could. Like all socks, it develops a hole. Being a philosopher he begins to wonder, will the sock still be the same sock after he darns in a repair? What about years later after he has made many repairs... or even later when all the woolly yarn of the original sock has been replaced?

We could go on and on. This is not a new discussion, yet I am very interested to hear some opinions as to how it applies to the purist pursuit of sandcast CB750 motorcycle restoration. Where is the line drawn between restoration vs reproduction?

peace and grease,
-fang

[srook]

There are a few principles at work here. The museum community is concerned with preservation/conservation. To the museum professional the artifact is either genuine or not. Any restored motorcycle ceases to be genuine when the original finishes are stripped off the parts. All restorations are inherently replicas. One person's interpretation of what it looked like when it left the factory. Restorations show us the ideal or ones interpretation of the ideal.

I worked in an HD dealership in the late 90s and one of my tasks was setting up new motorcycles. They come completely assembled in the crate except for handlebars which need to be fastened. Along the way the new motorcycle would be filled with oil, gas and waxed. I scratched some paint, nicked some chrome, bolted on accessories, replaced stock parts with non-stock parts. The motorcycles that left the dealership were in fact not the ideal of the factory but of the purchaser. The factory ideal resided in the crate. In 20 years HD restorers will have a terrible time trying to replicate the factory condition of these motorcycles.

I have no knowledge of how CB750s were crated, but the british industry shipped partially assembled motorcycles to the distributor. Cables, hoses and wires were routed differently in different regions. Attempting to replicate the look and feel of a motorcycle as it sat on the dealer's showroom floor can be almost impossible due to variations beyond the factories control. Even today there are arguments about the original condition of these motorcycles (painted v. unpainted cases). Vic World assembles a Sandcast CB750 as he percieved it to be on the showroom floor. Steve Swan creates a Sandcast CB750 as he percieved it to be. Both are replicas. Both are fantastic pieces, but not history, not OEM, not artifacts. The Honda Museum has a World CB750. It looked great on Twist the Throttle, but it is not worthy of conservation. It is only a replica. My opinion.
Scott

[cb7504]

Restoration:
Original part finished as it would be when new from original manufacture or replacement part manufactured from original mold used to produced original factory part. Updated product materials would be considered acceptable due advancing technologies.
Replica:
Part manufactured by other than original manufacture to look or function like the original part.
Just my thoughts.
Marty

[Steve Swan]

I am not sure there is a line to be drawn or if this is even a question to be asked, much less have an answer.........

What Steve Fang has opened discussion to are considerations fraught with dilemma for the individual who wants/needs his bike to look as close to original as possible, possibly under budget constraints and be road worthy as well.

The classic example dilemma for making a bike appear "like original" as follows - To install Yamiya exhaust or to install nos oem Honda 'paragraph' exhaust or seek endlessly for a genuine set of exhaust manfactured the month the owner's bike rolled off the assembly line ?

Yamiya exhaust clearly are not nos, oem parts, they are at best high quality replacement parts, produced to best of my knowledge by a manufacturer of unknown origin.

The Honda 'paragraph' exhaust currently or at least recently available from Honda are clearly nos, but not oem, of a production run well long after 1969.

Specs of production runs of parts are subject to change over the course of time, depending on importing/exporting country requirements, manufaturer and vendor specs.

Obviously when Honda had the 'paragraph' exhaust manufactured, they had emissions and sound compliance laws to conform to.

Hence the paragraph typically seen on the inner aspect of mufflers produced in later years after 1969 was never on the pipes manufactured in 1969.

Nor in recent parts production runs was Honda concerned with reproducing an unstamped muffler with no relief in pipes, much less a muffler with 5mm welded seams and no internal baffling designed to position the early long heavy steel baffles held in by a single not welded in 6 mm bolt.

What Honda was concerned with was producing an exhaust in meeting compliance of current transportation and emissions regulations, not meeting the desirous whim of some exacting restorer's need to fit "Lotus Roots" to his/her early production bike.

And the high quality Yamiya exhaust baffles are different from original Lotus Root baffles, albeit ever so slightly. And the bends in teh exhaust pipes have more distinctive mandrel markings, whereas any Honda pipes do not.

So.......... If we are restoring to "original condition"......... current, recent production nos parts supplied by Honda are not correct for any sandcast, they are not all exactly like the parts manufactured in 1969. (I am willing to bet a replacement oil line manufactured in 1970 and certainly 1971 was not exactly like an oil line fitted to a sandcast assembled at Honda in March or April 1969.) Nor are non-Honda reproduction parts correct for any sandcast for that matter, because they are not nos oem i.e., new original stock, original equipment manufacture.

Another example of the "restored to original" dilemma is date ink stamped side covers......... Does the owner search for the ink date stamped side cover to approximate the month of manufacture for his frame vin ? Or does he just install an original cover and call it good ennough ? Or does he simply buy Yamiya or DSS covers and call it good ? i can tell you, there are those of us out there who could not bear the thought of ink dated stamped side covers, e.g., 43.09.02 on a March 1969 frame vin.

At some point, one is forced to face the subject of compromise.

I imagine any camp within our universe of restorers could argue the correctness of installing later production nos "new original stock" Honda exhaust for a like original restoration. I also imagine we can argue the correctness for installing a set of Yamiyas which are neither nos or oem, but a very good reproduction of the 1969 exhaust. And, we could argue installing new/recent production Honda exhaust as being correct, if one wans their bike fitted only only with authentic Honda factory parts. As well, we could argue for appearance sake the correctness of using hard brittle original brake lines v.s. the good sense and liablity considerations for using current producton nos oem brake lines.

To me, considering original, refurbishing, restoration, replica...........

1. Factory new condition happens one time only, the moment after the bike was rolled off the assembly line, passed final inspection and being readied for partial disassembly to be placed in a shipping crate.

2. Unmolested original conditon is as the bike left the dealer floor, was delivered to the retail customer. Original unmolested condition would have to include possible markings from multiple decades of time and use, i.e., dents, chips, fade, scratches and so on.

3. Restored is restored, no matter attention to finish detail or part appearance correctness. Restored is not the factory new condition nor is restored an unmolested original condition.

4. Replica would be a fac similie thereof, i.e., George Beale RC166 replicas. No original parts are used to create Beale replicas. They are what they are, painstakingly correct replicas within the constraint of sourcing modern materials, etc.

Restored can be to original appearance or it can be to the restorers desire. And, the considerations never end in the futile search to accomplish a conditon of unattainable perfection to "restored like original condition."

Does this mean restored to original condition using only Honda parts......... ? Or restored to correct original appearance using reproduction parts such as Yamiya that are not nos oem........... ? Or using old brittle short neck brake lines for correctness sake vs using nos oem Honda brake line for a road worthy ride ?

Is the bike going to sit and never started after restoration ? Or is the bike going to be placed in active service afer the restoration ?

To me, the choices are clear, what parts i would use depending on what the plan for the bike is after restoration is completed.

I sure as hell don't want an unavailable and irreplaceable brittle short neck brake line to fail in service nor do i want to be pouring the products of combustion through a rare set of Yamiyas.

Ultimately, discussions of this sort have both objective and subjective considerations , sometimes under the constraints of budget and other times the contraints of liablity considering resale.

Making a bike look correct, complete and like original can be crazy making and it seems we sandcast guys certainly like to pay attention to detail, so it could be suggested there is at least a little bit of crazy in every one of us.

Where to draw the line is up to the individual owner. Our work will draw subjective critique of fellow owners and objective study of existing machines and period literature.

The very most important thing is, we have fun doing it and do all we can to build comraderie and fellowship.

[vnz00]

Beautifully put Steve S, and of course the other members too! It is an interesting topic of discussion, and one each owner or budding owner needs to consider before purchasing a bike.

I think it is up to the individual to make themselves happy with the restoration/preservation/replication they intend to undertake, but understand the differences and what would give themselves the feeling of most satisfaction upon completion.

No finish or repro part will ever be as the factory puts out. No restoration could ever be as per the original especially if intended for the road. After 40yrs who would trust NOS tires, brake lines or other consumables. A bike fresh out of the crate would be unusable today and merely an ornament. Sacrilige? I dont think so if thats what makes the owner happy. He who has the gold makes their own rules.

In my opinion, new parts today from honda and repro parts can pretty much be classified as compromise. A lot of the parts were contracted out for production even back then, so there was probably very few true OEM parts made by honda. parts reissued by honda now are no doubt made to different techniques/materials as time has gone on - as would repro parts. So the restored bike now, using new parts either honda or repro is not factory correct but a very good factory replica.

repro is always second to current new parts, as most restorers/preservers understand that honda current parts are the higher card to play when compromising. However period correct NOS or very good used will trump them all if you are willing to wait it out and in my opinion, the most addictive when bidding to win on ebay

It all comes down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder. the more adamant restorer puts a lot of effort into buying parts correct for the serial number - whether honda NOS or period used. the perfectionist waits for a crated bike to appear from the bowels of alibaba's cave and pays the price. the preservationist looks for a good used bike with low miles and maintains the original patina and appreciates yesterday's techniques of finishing. The preservationist however is less likely to compromise and will seek out the correct NOS or period correct used parts for their bike and compromises only as much as their own discipline/conscience allows.

The reality is, no-one of us can say for sure what is correct/what is different regarding parts. Not one of our bikes came from the factory with a written report of which manufacturer produced this part, batch number x, applied to bikes x, y, z etc. Its only by relying on this site, and the informed experience of its members that we can only come close to even replicating what finishes/parts/differences lie with each bike.

I was lucky to get a close to original bike. In total, about 6 things were replaced with later parts or not on the bike, and the paint had been redone on its original tank.

My thought process of preserving it which suits my mind (which hopefully wont change with hindsight).
My bike is low mileage - 8000 miles. Not a new bike but not ready for a full resto either. So I think this way:
Replace parts with very good period parts or NOS if required for safety. I would want my bike to be functional and tidy, and as much of a preservation of the original as possible (i.e. NO repro parts except for oil, fuel, air in the tires  paint/rechrome if absolutely necessary to prevent the part from becoming too decayed etc)
Look at the part in question - any part on the bike:
Is it irreplacable or will it take considerable time/cost to replace? -> Off the bike. Replace with NOS/Period Correct Used.
If OK to keep on the bike - Can it still be used and safe?
Yes -> Clean it as best as possible and reuse. Use steps to preserve if required (i.e. oil/remove rust/corrosion inhibitor/grease)
No -> Replace with period correct NOS replacement or equiv used.

If a cosmetic part -> Does it make a difference to safety/correct operation if left as is?
Yes -> if consumable replace with NOS or repair with other period correct parts or restore as close as possible to original spec.
No -> clean and reuse, repair part if possible before considering rechroming/repainting

Nuts/Bolts Chromed/Zinced -> lack of finish/rusted
Yes -> Chrome - if rusted, replace with period used, or NOS. Zinced - if missing zinc, not rusted, it stays. If rusted, replaced with correct period replacement or rezinc.

Original part repaired/repainted/rechromed/replated
Unsatisfactory repair -> Rectify by restoring as using as close to original as possible
Satisfactory repair -> Needs to be VERY spot on or redone or replaced with original parts

Examples are - Tank repainted, repro stripes used, shoddy tank liner. I opted to have all the bodywork repainted, matched to original colour, tanks painted on, tank relined. I would have preferred the original, if faded tank, but would have lined it if rust potentially made that original part unusable in the future. There was some damage to the other plastics which could have become worst in use, so it had to be this way. However paint colour, inside finishes were as per the original parts.

Front brake - bracket worn. Replaced with NOS parts for correct operation. If any part was servicable, it was retained with original patina (even down to the original split pins/pads/piston).

Current Dilema - Original Lotus Root pipes - slight holes repaired - inside rust a possible issue. Outside, cosmetically acceptable. I would not replace these, I would leave them on the bike. however as there is no way of removing the rust completely from the inside I will probably have to restore. This means cutting open, removing rust and chrome, repairing, and rechroming using factory technique (i.e. not over polished, no copper base coat). It might also involve ceramic coating on the inside to preserve them. From the outside, invisible, I have the original part looking as per factory with no sign of repair, and preserved from further decay.

It is as always a fine balance, but preserving original parts is always preferred to introducing NOS/period used parts. But where I have used NOS to replace a part, I have kept the original and wont sell it off. i.e. short neck brake lines, rusted indicator bodies, nuts/ bolts, cracked bodywork. Too much to list here. At least by not rushing in and restoring each part, the next owner has the option of preserving/restoring, and has the headache of working out what is best for them

Happy Restoring/Preserving/Replicating (whatever your niche is) but remember to please yourself at the end of listening to everyone's valid points.

[fang]

Steve, vnz00, and others, thank you for your thoughtful, well articulated reflections. I really appreciate what you have said, and I feel that I have learned something meaningful by reading all your responses.

I have been kind of slow to chime in on my own post because on many levels, in spite of my passion and skills, I suspect many of you here are on a completely different level than I when it comes to the restoration of these bikes.

I have gone through several anally painstaking restorations over the years. The most miserable was was a mid 1960's Yamaha 2-stroke 180cc, of the YC* series. I really like those old 2-strokes! I spent thousands of dollars and several years collecting, refurbishing and installing bits. (Where does all that money go?!) This process began before the internet was a useful tool, so back then it was all leads through Wallnecks, word of mouth, and swap meets. I know many of you know what I am talking about. As the internet caught up to what I was trying to do, it only became more difficult. The abundance of conflicting information (or lack there of) combined with a lack of baseline standards for the model led to quite a bit of confusion! In the end I decided that not even Yamaha knew what they put on these machines, and I eventually had to draw the line and call it quits. When 'done' I had a beautiful little machine that was a delight to putt around on.

God bless my patient, supportive and long suffering wife, because she has endured this sort of thing many times over the years.

With our sandcast CB750s, I suspect that to some measure Honda also did not really know what was put on some of them. Fortunately, the combination of many remaining examples and the model being very well documented in period literature provides the restorer with lots of good information. It might be daunting information, but it still is good!

I tend to like operational restorations -- I enjoy driving the wheels off of my bikes. I think Steve Swan(?) mentioned in another post that he has never actually started his bike (or one of his sandcast bikes). He knows his machinist did a spot-on job, and is confident it WILL start when called upon. This kind of passionate discipline is all but mind boggling to me. I am deeply motivated to restoration because I wish to own and drive an ideal specimen of the vehicle in question -- and since I rarely can afford to purchase one outright, a long, patient restoration process is like an interest-free loan. Pay as you go, take your time and do it correctly. The devil is in the details.

My drive to, er, drive the vehicles I restore probably makes me a bit less of a purist. Because it is my intent to pilot these machines, I like modern tires, o-ring chains, leak-free batteries, modern synthetic oils, all working together with reliable brakes, functional suspension, and motors that don't blow up. For instance, if it is known that many of the motors of a certain marque blew up because of a know faulty cam chain issue, I tend to prefer to "upgrade" to a modern cam chain and tensioner -- maybe parts are available which are manufactured to support modern vintage racing. The tension between 'correcting' flaws in an old motor so it cane be used today, vs restoring an engine to original specs has all ways been a difficult line for me to walk. I am a competent bike tech, and I am comfortable taking a motor apart. This has helped me lean toward "invisible" internal mechanical improvements.

To be completely honest, I am not sure where all this puts me on the restoration vs reproduction scale. It probably varies from day to day. It seems apparent that there are many kinds of restoration, and many kinds of reproduction. It may not be black and white. Maybe more like a rainbow?

The bottom line is that I authentically love old Japanese motorcycles. People usually like how my bikes look. Heck, I love looking at them. I love reading about them. I love working on them. But most of all I love driving them. I live in a decent-sized city (Austin, TX) with occasionally impressive traffic and its fair share of crazy drivers. It seems that regardless of what they look like, my old bikes need a bit more than a good cleaning before they are good reliable machines on my local roads. This might have a lot to do with the fact that I rarely pay more than $1000 for an old bike.... At the same time, unless you are Jay Leno, a museum piece probably should not be on the road. Yet, I like to get my 'museum pieces' -- regardless of their value -- and put them on the road.

The delicate and fine art of correct restoration can be daunting, to say the least. I applaud the dedication and passion of the true enthusiasts here who are exercising great effort and personal expense to preserve these incredible machines. Though it is not for everyone, no price tag can be placed on the hard work that is encouraged and accomplished here. I appreciate that there is room for many voices to contribute to this conversation, even when they might be different harmonies of the same tune.

Peace and grease,
-fang