What exactly is 'period correct'?

[DM]

[puts on kettle; opens new pack of biscuits]

I think Stewie has it: The basic definitions are "fairly" straightforward.
And, in some cases, that provides quite a lot of wriggle-room, even if you're being pedantic with spec/ years.

For other stuff, like the 1-year only "Rush-Hour" slicks on one of my cruisers... I'm just going to have to deviate from the catalog spec after 15 years of riding, as they're now down to the canvas... But who cares - modern Schwalbe Big Apples are so much nicer

And the whole bike is worth nothing to snobby collectors anyway, but is one of my favorites for JRA. So to hell with period correctness.

As LGF said, do what you want.
If it was some wonderful nor-Cal fillet brazed lovely I might stick to correct spec. But it's not - So I'm just going to continue to ride and enjoy it as it devolves.

Some bikes are high-maintenance, like Prima-Ballerinas; others are "lifers" - You know you're still going to be riding them forever, no matter what shape they end up in.

Some will take all your money in an attempt to preserve their pristine youth; for others, standards will slip over the years. But it's all good (mostly).

(I think there's some kind of tenuous "relationship" analogy in there, but I'm too politically correct to pursue it further )

 

[brocklanders023]

Interesting topic this and I don't think I've fully made my mind up yet.

I wouldn't class period correct the same as OE but I would draw the line at calling XTR on a 1990 bike or Judy's on a 92 period correct. I think pre 95 or so is easier to nail down then post 95 as in the later bikes you start to run into the cross over between canti's/V's and the like.


I think I'd go on specific bike frames and the changes made to them through their time line as a 'period'. An example of this would be a 1990 Clockwork compared to a 1994. Basically the same frame and not too far apart in age but differences such as cable routing and head tube length tell them apart. I wouldn't stick 93 LX gear on the 90 and class it as period correct and in the same way I wouldn't put non lo pro canti's on the 94. I think I know what I mean. :?

 

[silverclaws]

I suppose to keep bikes catalogue correct is to me a form of control, and I don't like control, except for me controlling my bike, but as I have always been a more sense than money kind of person, also known as skint, what I have always had was what was practical and cheap.

When linear brakes came out I was impressed by them, but I had modified my cantis to be pretty damned hot, I didn't need an increase in breaking power. Modifications included getting rid of the stupid M- system and doing my own thing, not before I had bought the plastic M-system straddle guages which did not improve things, M-system just plain sucked.

My current braking quest is because of where I now live, it's all hills and my current Saracen, only a year younger than my original Saracen is not as flexible in terms of modifications as my old friend, and I am as usual skint, so I have to think of effective modifications, not delving into the pocket to sort a problem out.

Of course I could turn back the clock on my present ride to obtain the flexibility my old Sararacen, a '92 Traverse Elite had, ditch the aheadset assembly and fork and go for the quill system, that way I will have the flexibility again, but again modifications of that sort cost, and what's more, parts are more scarce now. I really have to justify how I spend my money.

So, for me though I do try to keep things as they should be, I am finding more now that running a retro bike, my only bike, I have to be practical, if nothing period is available at a cost I can afford, then it will have to be more modern stuff, as the name of the game for me, is keep the bike running.

 

[MikeD]

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.

That's a different issue, though. If it's a 1996 frame, Vs would be period correct. Not wishing to put Vs on it because it's got a canti cable hanger is an ideological/aesthetic objection, not a dispute about the contemporaneity of components

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.

I believe that's what I said, yes

 

[hamster]

A huge amount of this depends on whether you are actually going to ride it.

If you are one of the classic car show types who likes cleaning it more than riding it, then fair do's and fit all your original stuff, and obsess overnight about whether Marin in 1993 used KMC or Cheng Shin OE chains.

The collector crowd seem to get upset with me that I run modern rear mechs (on a 7 speed system) on one 1990 bike but also that I am wearing out and using NOS 735 XT by riding it in the woods on another.

If it's a rider, then swap anything that makes it more fun to ride, although I prefer a conservative approach still to do the minimum (e.g. change chainrings but not swap to 4-arm cranks).

 

[Dr S]

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?

I don't really get this thread?

Period correct is what it says on the tin. If a bike is period correct then everything is what was available in that given year. Catalogue spec is also the same- it wears what it did the day it left the shop. End of.

It has decended into the same old argument about what people prefer to do with their own bikes- thats fine and dandy but a 1992 bike with 1996 brakes is no longer period correct- there is no room for interpretation here, its a fact. You might prefer it that way but it cannot be labled as Period.

I would argue that the 'period' in question is the life time of the bike

Thats crazy! So my Schwinn Excelsior frame was made in 1937. Going on that argument I could put any part from the last 73 years on the bike and still say it is period correct!
Using the same bike as an example there is a different perspective though. It has been built as a Repack style bike and is spec-ed as it would have been in 1974-75 out in Marin. I class that as period correct although it is a million miles away from its original build spec and date.

What I'm trying to say (badly) is there are no hard and fast rules as long as a bike is sympathetically built. If a 96-97 bike came from the shop with cantis then that is how it was designed and sold- upgrading to V brakes would have been a period mod and something we all did, but does it still qualify as period? Probably yes, but spiritually? no, Sympathetic to the essence of the bike? probably not, better to ride? yes granted, but is it right?

Si

 

[mikee]

kinda agree and dis-agree with that DRs
the frame must be the start point a 1991 frame then if going "period correct" the additions must be later parts
i.e. you wouldnt take a 95 frame and fit 91 forks on it ,or would you ?

period correct is what wifey is every 3 weeks ,so DON'T you dare dis-agree

 

[Dr S]

If using a 91 frame as a starting point then the parts must be 91 for it to be period correct. Not before or after but the same year. It's as simple as that. A spade is a spade, black is black etc etc.

 

[Anthony]

If using a 91 frame as a starting point then the parts must be 91 for it to be period correct. Not before or after but the same year. It's as simple as that. A spade is a spade, black is black etc etc.

No that's clearly wrong. There is no reason to limit the meaning of the word 'period' to a year.

The early 90s is a period. The mid 90s is a period. If you want to stick to one year, you should say 'year correct'.

 

[mfh126]

If using a 91 frame as a starting point then the parts must be 91 for it to be period correct. Not before or after but the same year. It's as simple as that. A spade is a spade, black is black etc etc.

No that's clearly wrong. There is no reason to limit the meaning of the word 'period' to a year.

The early 90s is a period. The mid 90s is a period. If you want to stick to one year, you should say 'year correct'.

I'll add my two cents to this thread by saying I completely disagree. Period-correct means the bike is built with parts from the same year as the frame. You couldn't put M737 spec components on a '92 frame and call it period correct. Dr S is spot on with his definition.