What exactly is 'period correct'?

[highlandsflyer]

The discussion about V brakes made me think.

When V brakes came out, I fitted them to many bikes, just like a lot of my pals did.

One of my personal bikes was a four year old Klein.

If I got hold of the same frame now I would not dream of hobbling it with cantis. I couldn't care less about being period correct, but at the same time I would argue that the 'period' in question is the life time of the bike, and the period I would emulate was 1996, with a four year old Klein fitted with V brakes.

Get me?

 

[legrandefromage]

you can do what you want with your bike.

'period correct' would be parts from when the bike was availabe. v brakes werent aound in 1992 for instance but a disc brake was.

catalogue is exactly as it appeared in the shop or catalogue

 

[FMJ]

Guys were putting disk brake front ends and LT-1 motors in 69 Camaros back in the late 70s/early 80s. Which is going to be more lusted after/bid on when it comes up on the stage at Barrett-Jackson today, that, or a 69 Yenko with matching numbers?

 

[stewlewis]

If the period is the lifetime of the bike and we're all riding 'retro' bikes then it's still in their lifetime, so do we stick SLX or SRAM 0 on them?

Original Spec correct (1995 bike with the exact bits as supplied from the catalogue)

Period correct (1995 bike with the best upgraded/attractive bits from 1995)

Now if the supply was frame only then any bits from the same year (or years) the frame was available.

If the groupset was available over many years, the bike/frame only 1 year. Then you can have bits from a different year.

Get me ?

 

[Anthony]

Yes, and I completely agree with you.

Some people who believe that bikes should be restored to exactly the original spec tend to use 'period correct' to describe that state. But that implies that the period they have in mind is zero seconds.

If a bike came out in 1996 with cantis fitted and every serious owner, especially racers, immediately had it upgraded to M739 Vs, then it seems silly to me to say that M739s are not period correct and that an owner today should fit inferior cantis instead.

Upgrading was an essential part of a serious rider's ownership of a bike BITD, so to me the bike that is in its upgraded state as it was a few years after purchase is period correct.

 

[drystonepaul]

Interesting question.

For me the term 'period correct' means all the components and parts of a bike coming from more or less the same year of manufacture.
I have a GT Karakoram Elite for example which is period correct to 1991 even down to the cables. The only thing not period correct on that bike is the chain.

However there is a sliding scale I suppose, with some bikes having more modern additions like chains, rims and perhaps tyres. I think as long as the aesthetics and function match what was available at the time then it can still be considered more or less, but not completely period correct.
It depends on how much of a purist you are and what you're trying to achieve.

Of course bikes evolve as they age so there's nothing wrong with reflecting this in your own builds. We all upgraded during the lifetime of our bikes afterall.

When you go down the slippery slope of multiple bikes then the possibilities for 'period correct catalogue build', '90% period correct rider' and 'retro-mod/hot-rod' for example start to get thrown into the mix.
Each is valid, but may not be to everyone's taste.

The V-brake versus cantilever debate can be a fairly devisive though, as many consider V-brakes one piece of technology which defines the end of a particular period in mountain biking. Whether having V-brakes on a bike should be considered the bench mark for what is and isn't retro is another moot point.
Anyway I digress.

Ultimately it's whatever you're happy with, but asking such questions on a forum dedicated to 'retrobikes' will usually mean that keeping things 'as they were' rather than 'what they became' will usually will out.

 

[the great roberto]

For my karakoram to be as it left the shop, it would need some fairly shitty componants. Was the front mech lx or acera. Cant remember, but it didn't last long. Same for the rear mech. Both bits up-spec'd to m739 bits. And all the better for it. Same for the lx shifters.

What for me matters is the frame/fork. Are they worthy of better componants ? The steel frame karakoram was exactly the same as my mates Bravadnly difference was no XT from the factory where he got a load plus some judy forks.

For me I'll use a decent and cheap retro frame and bolt the most appropriate and best componants I can.

 

[drystonepaul]

For my karakoram to be as it left the shop, it would need some fairly shitty componants. Was the front mech lx or acera.

The 91 Karakoram was third from the top of the steel range and was DX throughout. In later years it moved down the range as new models were introduced. I don't think it's ever been specced with anything below LX though. Not that there is anything wrong with mid range builds though. STX for example is great.

What for me matters is the frame/fork. Are they worthy of better componants ? The steel frame karakoram was exactly the same as my mates Bravado. Only difference was no XT from the factory where he got a load plus some judy forks.

The Bravado has always had a slightly better frame than the Karakoram throughout it's existance.
I wish I still had my 1992 Bravado from BITD, but I do still own my original 1997 Bravado which went through an upgrades stage until about 2005 when it was turned into a singlespeed. It's now been restored back to a period correct state after 13 years of ownership, including it's original XT V-brakes.

I agree that some frames are certainly worthy of component upgrades. My preference would be to also keep things period correct though.

In short, if I want the benefits of a modern bike, then I usually ride one of my modern bikes, whereas if I'm feeling nostalgic then an older bike get's selected to ride.

As well as being a bit of a retro grouch I am also slightly OCD.
We all have our faults though...

 

[MikeD]

If a bike came out in 1996 with cantis fitted and every serious owner, especially racers, immediately had it upgraded to M739 Vs, then it seems silly to me to say that M739s are not period correct and that an owner today should fit inferior cantis instead.

It would be silly were anyone saying that Of course V-brakes are period correct on a 1996 bike, whether it came with them or not. Catalogue spec is merely a subset of period correct

 

[RockiMtn]

If a bike came out in 1996 with cantis fitted and every serious owner, especially racers, immediately had it upgraded to M739 Vs, then it seems silly to me to say that M739s are not period correct and that an owner today should fit inferior cantis instead.

It would be silly were anyone saying that Of course V-brakes are period correct on a 1996 bike, whether it came with them or not. Catalogue spec is merely a subset of period correct

some purists would disagree with that statement. if the frame came with a canti hanger, they would say it's blasphemy to go with Vs and not to use it.

OE spec would be a subset of being period correct. OE spec would be the exact components that came on the bike from the manufacturer, and period correct being components available in the year the bike was for sale that could be purchased as upgrades.