I'm curious what Club members think about bike values, Re: original condition vs. restored.
I know there is a lot of variables here but let's generalize in the following manner:
Suppose two different people both get lucky when gassing up in a small Midwestern town which leads them to an old shed on a remote farm. There they find (and buy) an old (let's say 1908) motorcycle in original conditon, mostly complete, but somewhat tampered with by previous owners, with some "minor" broken, worn, or mended parts, surface rusty, and with a rather crusty unattractive overall appearance. In other words: an "old junker."
Say these 2 guys in this lovely identical scenario do different things with their newly obtained treasures. One is lazy or cheap and leaves the 1908 bike exactly as he finds it. Maybe he sprays some oil on it to keep it from rusting further and pumps up the tires. Maybe he gets it running.
The other person pays BIG BUCKS to have his 1908 crust-bucket professionaly restored to pristine "new" factory fresh high gloss, polished, and perfectly repaired condition. Some parts are even made new to replace worn or broken ones. It's so nice when finished that it looks like freaking (ahem) "rolling sculpture" artwork.
Question 1: When all is said and done who has the more valuable bike: the cheap guy who leaves his alone or the guy who spends BIG BUCKS for a perfect restoration?
Question 2: From Question#1 what do you think would be the value differential (%) between the crusty drab original bike and the perfectly restored and beautiful restoration that is so dazzling and nice that you need sunglasses to look at it?
I believe this is a valid and important question to ask as there appears to be divided opinions in the Club on this subject. Please answer the 2 questions if you wish to participate. Other comments are also welcome.
PS: We're not serving pink lemonade or issuing kid gloves for this Poll, but let's try to respect each others views. Thanks.