Restore or patina (rust)

Purely a matter of personal taste, whatever you do, some "Anorak" will slate it! I would just get it looking clean, and tidy, then ride it.

+1

Previously John Shorter wrote:

Purely a matter of personal taste, whatever you do, some "Anorak" will slate it! I would just get it looking clean, and tidy, then ride it.

Seems as it is half pulled apart anyhow I would go down the restore route. If it had just been wheeled out the barn in one original piece that had just been parked up and just needed a bit of fettling to get going I would go the patina route. A friend of mine loves piecing together Nortons and going for that barn fresh look and they certainly do look the part. Each to their own.

I like the 'patina' look. Whenever I get a bike like this, which isn't often, I always start out to keep it that way. Trouble is, once a new part or two are added, or a bit of paintwork done by necessity, it don't look right and I end up restoring it anyway. Keeping it as it is will obviously be the least expensive and time consuming option, meaning you'll be out on it quicker!

Hi John,

It's only original once so if it were mine I'd keep the patina where possible but when they get begrimed like that and the mechanics need doing you have no option but to clean some of it off.

I went to great lengths to conserve my Model 7 which is probably one of the most original surviving 55 models.

Jim

P.S. TXT *** is a London series issued 3/57-10/57. Sadly the DVLC later DVLA told all local authorities to bin their records when computerisation was being carried outand London skipped virtually everything.

I wonder how many 'patinated' bikes are 'only original once'. On a 50 - 60 year old bike, how can one tell the difference between 'patina' accumulated over 50 years and that accumulated over the 25 years since it was last refurbished? Or even 10 years? And is one better than another? And does it matter?