Original spec? No thanks...

I know it goes against the grain and is somewhat sacrilegious - but I don't fully understand the 'back to original spec' retro build... :facepalm:
Here me out...! I'm a 90's boy - the bikes, the music and even the football (Italia 90 & Euro 96) were part of my formative years. My 3 bikes in the 90's were a 1992 Marin Eldridge Grade, a 1994 Orange Clockwork and a 1997 Kona Lava Dome. All mass produced and mid range (that was my budget!). They were all great bikes - but all had OEM bits on them that were rubbish. Over time I replaced bits and pieces that were not up to it, not pretty enough or got worn out. The 90's was the time that we saw an explosion of after-market parts with loads of amazing companies from all over the world (with the British at the forefront) making parts that were better than OEM stuff (some of it was 'pants' - to use a 90's phrase). It was a market that was always always evolving and innovating to make our bikes look and ride better. The 92 Eldridge was the best bike I've owned - but if I had it now - I'd only keep the 'heart' of the bike - the frame and forks - every other bit would be replaced with better stuff. This is what we did BITD - did we not?
All of this brings me to my current 'retro' bike which sums up my ethos on retro builds - it's a 92 Marin Team Issue frame which only has a sprinkling of original spec parts (XTR chainset - which is great and why replace), has some retro British (Pace, Hope and X-Lite) - but has a lot of more modern stuff (I have the much hated Dual Control!).
Am I saying my bike is 'better' than the original spec - actually yes I am! My bike is scratched, got a few dings and most of the decals have long gone - but it's honest, 'retro' at heart, and, most importantly, rides like a dream!
It goes without saying - I do love seeing the bikes (and the passion put into them) and being taken back in time by the retro builds and the bikes I lusted after.

Re:

NO ONE kept things catalogue back then. I guess the obsession with that is down to nothing else to pin down.

I mean, competitive sorts want to be able to play on a level field. That never existed.

These were utilitarian machines; not fashion accessories.

Good call!

Build/ride your bike how you want it ... nobody has any business telling anyone else what components they 'should' use ...

unless you really want to make it era/catalogue specific, for some reason.

I never understood the "back to spec" thing either. Especially in mid-level bikes.

Re:

I can sort of understand the "catalogue spec" builds, but to be honest they seem pretty boring, and often undertaken on bikes that will not actually be ridden, rather kept in a "collection" and shown off every now + then.

I agree with Highlandsflyer, no-One kept their bike stock for very long, there was always some shiny cnc upgrade to fit instead. It's still the same these days! some things never change...

Although..... I can't think of that many aftermarket "upgrades" that actually worked better than the OEM stuff, some of it may have been slightly lighter, but some of it also had a higher tendency to break.... but that's not the point is it ?

Re:

Horses for courses, really.

Some want to recreate that just bought from a bike shop feel - and like the thrill of chasing down original, perhaps NOS, parts.

Others want something that is tailored to their riding preferences, is the best of an era or simply like trying stuff out.

If you had a low range bike (my first was a Saracen Sahara), upgrades made quite a bit of difference to the performance of the bike and were often necessary due to parts wearing out quickly, breaking in crashes etc.

Personally, I'm not a purist about creating the just from the catalogue feel. I'll happily stick shorter stems/riser bars on mid 90s bikes so I'm not recreating the back aches and crouched over the handlebars/nose touching the front wheel position common back them.

As Jimo says, many of the upgrade stuff was fragile and didn't work very well (Paul's rear mech anyone?) and I personally agree that the catalogue thing feels dreary to me. (Cue nasal voice: "far be it for me to comment but Shimano actually used a yellow grease in 1994 on rear mechs, and the 1994 Eldridge used a Ta Cheng chain not KMC...")

However there are plenty of unobtrusive corners that were cut (typically bottom bracket and headset for starters) where there is room for improvement. Personally I ride what the purists would call retromod - I use later rear mechs for example rather than trash costly older ones. Some things I will never do: 4-arm cranks simply look all wrong to me (like alloys on an E-Type).

It's your bike, few are irreplaceable and most are mass-manufactured products made in huge numbers.

Ride it, don't just polish and lick it.

You've answered your own question with your question: catalogues.

In many cases it's all we had to lust over the dream machines we're fortunate to pick-up now in later years. So, naturally we want to re-create that picture, that memory, even though the kit was in some cases utterly rubbish.

The day I bought my GT, the saddle, bars and stem were off and the thing was sticker bombed within a few days of riding.

Catalog builds are dull. A bike I sold a while ago was 'original' to its former 1980's owner with all his little quirks, modifications and idiosyncrasies. The new owner then rebuilt it in to something really boring taking away its individuality and personality.

to me, who cares what components are on your retro ride, or why you picked them, its still a retro at heart and if its being used then all the better. its you bike, its your money, do what you like