Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:52 pm
Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:44 am
Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:04 am
ALOHADAVE wrote:“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” The Spirit of St Louis as example.
“Restored original (Restoration): An artifact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a National Museum of the United States Air Force (USAFM) definition.
“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artifact in part or in total.” Another (USAFM) definition. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.
“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”
Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:15 am
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:21 pm
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:01 pm
Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:56 pm
Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:49 am
C VEICH wrote:Let's imagine that it is the year 2119. Spitfires no longer fly but are just artifacts in museums or tucked away in the collections of rich, eccentric individuals. Do those Spitfires which contain high percentages of actual Supermarine produced metal command higher prices than those primarily made from new metal? I will bet they do. And that is when this debate will get settled.
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:10 am
Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:29 pm
ALOHADAVE wrote:Robert Mikesh, former Senior Curator of the National Air & Space Museum, in ‘Restoring Museum Aircraft’ Briefly defines them as follows:
“Original: A specimen that can be shown to be in the original as-built configuration, or as modified by the user, that remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service.” The Spirit of St Louis as example.
“Restored original (Restoration): An artifact composed of at least 50% original components (by surface area or volume) and the remainder returned to accurate early condition made with the same materials, components and accessories.” – He quotes it as a National Museum of the United States Air Force (USAFM) definition.
“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artifact in part or in total.” Another (USAFM) definition. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.
“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”
ALOHADAVE wrote:From Joe Norris, EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
“The basic difference between doing a restoration and building a replica is what you start with. A restoration means that you have an existing aircraft that you disassemble, repair as necessary, and reassemble.
A replica is a new aircraft constructed from raw materials that has the same specifications as the aircraft it replicates.
The data plate on the restoration would indicate the original manufacturer, the original serial number, and the original model.
The data plate on the replica would indicate the name of the builder of the replica (not the manufacturer name of the original aircraft that's being replicated), and would have a serial number and model name assigned by the builder of the replica.”
C VEICH wrote:Let's imagine that it is the year 2119. Spitfires no longer fly but are just artifacts in museums or tucked away in the collections of rich, eccentric individuals. Do those Spitfires which contain high percentages of actual Supermarine produced metal command higher prices than those primarily made from new metal? I will bet they do. And that is when this debate will get settled.
Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:02 pm
Noha307 wrote:C VEICH wrote:Let's imagine that it is the year 2119. Spitfires no longer fly but are just artifacts in museums or tucked away in the collections of rich, eccentric individuals. Do those Spitfires which contain high percentages of actual Supermarine produced metal command higher prices than those primarily made from new metal? I will bet they do. And that is when this debate will get settled.
It really bothers me that this discussion is dominated by money and market value. Sure, what people want will determine value, but their is a disconnect between value and authenticity/originality. The bottom line is that no amount of money will ever change whether an airframe is a restoration or a reproduction or replica. It may change people's perception of what one is because how they are (mis)represented, but the actual matter remains entirely separate.
Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:34 pm
Noha307 wrote:It really bothers me that this discussion is dominated by money and market value.
Noha307 wrote:but their is a disconnect between value and authenticity/originality.
Noha307 wrote:The bottom line is that no amount of money will ever change whether an airframe is a restoration or a reproduction or replica.
Noha307 wrote:It may change people's perception of what one is because how they are (mis)represented, but the actual matter remains entirely separate.
Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:54 am
C VEICH wrote:
My point being that when these aircraft are no longer flying and are reduced to being just static artifacts, then there will be no disconnect because, I suspect, authenticity/originality will be the determining factor when it comes to value.
Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:57 am
Saville wrote:Why do you make the assumption that these planes (and others) won't be flying 20, 50, 100 years from now?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:06 am
JohnB wrote:Saville wrote:Why do you make the assumption that these planes (and others) won't be flying 20, 50, 100 years from now?
I can't speak for C VEICH, but as I said above, my guess will be lack of AVGAS. Listen to some politicians, they want only electric cars in 20-25 years.
Good luck trying to get the very small supply of AVGAS needed for warbirds 50-100 years from now.
You can have rich collectors, teams of expert mechanic and restorers, but no one will have a refinery in their pocket. Even the Vulcan group doesn't have that kind of money. And if they did, the environmental lobby won't allow it.