How do you build your vintage frames?

[Prodigal Son]

The other day i was watching on youtube an early Bontrager race light build. The shop was lovely and i could feel the love from the owner/ mechanic for the frame. The list of parts he chose for the build had great high end parts like Ringle hubs and Ritchey cranks but other than the salsa stem nothing on the list had anything to do w the classic Bontrager build of early Race Lites which was basically deore xt m730, rugged, functional, dependable shimano and zero bling. No xtr derrailleurs. No Ringle hubs or Ritchey parts since both builders of nice steel handmade bikes had different styles. Even the dia compe 987s on that build was from a different time frame.
It felt wrong and i couldnt watch the video. I believe each vintage brand asks for a certain kind of build. Fat Chances did Ringle as well as Salsa along w/ syncros. Yetis were all about Ringle head to toe. Salsas had Bontrager forks. WTB Phoenix had Specialized, Ritchey and Suntour. Breezers had lots of Ritchey.
Whenever i see a build lthat follows the original i feel the rider brings back mtb history and vibe .

 

[Frankenorange]

Each to their own, but when i see a build following the original i just end up comparing it to all the other builds, that are exactly the same.
I don't know if boring is really the right word to use , but copy cat builds aren't exactly exciting unless the 'catalogue build' components are out of the ordinary.
What i find exciting is seeing builds that break the mould and when done right it makes me spend a good while examining the build, or thinking yeah, i want to ride the sh!t out of that! .

 

[moonlite]

It's a perennial debate, isn't it? With rarer and more premium frames like the ones you mention, being period-correct is definitely a strong option, particularly if it's in really good nick, which makes it a kind of representative of a certain time in cycling history. For lower-level, more mass-produced bikes, there's also a theme of keeping a nice bike rideable -- saving it from redundancy, in a way. A lot depends on what the owner wants to do with it. It's one of the enjoyable things about this forum -- seeing what others are deciding to do and debating (always in a constructive way) how to proceed with their projects.

 

[SeeingisBelievingGTMuseum]

One way...the only way...Period Correct parts.

 

[baron von greenback]

I think if you buy a bike and all original keep like that and or if it just needs a part or two find them if it's in good nick then buy another frame the same and throw anything on it also If I am going to change it I would keep all original parts that way you can always put back or if you do sell you appeal to two sellers

 

[rentedmule]

I try to use period correct(ish) parts, but the parts I would have had at that time if I could have afforded them. I'll often finish a build using whatever parts I have available in the shop and then pick away at making it 'correct' later on.

Sometimes I just build something with parts I think will pair well together to see if I'll like it though.

 

[Once A Hero]

Apart from the very occasional bling part, I tend to build my bikes with parts that I was familiar or used with bitd.
Thinking back, when racing, I can't remember any chat in my group of mates that we must have things like Ringle or Paul components, the showy stuff just didn't feature on our radars. It was all about function over form so we stuck to what we knew (and most likely could afford).
Now I like a bit of variety but still try not to adorn my bikes with unnecessarily expensive parts.

 

[Guinessisgoodforyou]

One way...the only way...Period Correct parts.

No. Owners choice unless you want a catalogue match.

 

[novocaine]

There aren't many bikes that didn't get a tweak or 2 in their life.
you want period correct, go for it, you want catalogue spec, go for thats if you want to. To me though, catalogue spec is just what they maker decided based on cost, so why build the bike as the accountants intended, build it as the owner intended instead. If you are the owner now, build it however you dang well want, it's your bike.

 

[Tsundere]

No two builds are exactly the same.
Even if we're talking about the exact same model of bike, the builders intentions and expectations will differ. Some builds are all about restoring a bike back to its original catalogue spec, but is it for a life as a garage queen or as a rider? Other builds are focused on making it more practical for everyday use.

Some builds are about creating that dream blinged up bike you would have loved to own as a teenager but couldn't afford, in which case only your present budget dictates what's possible.

Other builds have no real plan behind them except to get the bike rideable. I recently built a bike up in order to make it as great to ride as possible but also visually repellant to thieves. I kept it relatively period correct but only because most of the stuff in my parts bin is from around the same era.

Unless a bike is historically significant or particularly rare I don't think it matters how the build is handled, as long as the bike is going to be used, whether it's as a pub bike, a commuter, a tourer, a sunny day bimbler or even as a display piece.