Rebuilt, Reconditioned, or Restored?

here's a similar example i encountered a few years back.  three parts gathered from three different cars...

all original Marx parts, but when reassembled, can it still be called original?  since i never plan on selling it, it's less of an ethical question to me, but i'd still be curious to hear opinions.

one more interesting complication in this example... the frame which is the proper frame for both the searchlight cars (there is a dual light version, also) and lighted coaches (which also came as red lithographed frames) was actually taken off a #555 reefer.  apparently on the day that car was assembled at the factory, either by mistake or due to shortages, this punched out frame was used instead of a solid frame.  so this less common frame was actually never a lighted car (the reason the pickup had to come from a third donor).  hence, the only part of this rebuild that was originally a searchlight car was the searchlight itself.

cheers...gary

My opinion only, restored tells me it should look just like it did when it left the factory, otherwise it is a custom piece. A blue car that is now green is not restored.

Steve

has been assembled from entirely correct original parts, and has no new paint or touch-ups, it would be considered original since there is no practical way to tell the difference.

If anything riveted, staked or tabbed is removed and reinstalled or replaced, most knowledgeable collectors usually can tell. Few people have the tools and knowledge of how to make these things look like factory work. The other tell is when replacement parts don't have the same patina as the rest of the item.

all original Marx parts, but when reassembled, can it still be called original? 

I like to put things together. I don't usually sell any of those items, the parts are usually worth more than the whole. On those rare occasions that I do, I let people know that it was put together.
For my own records, I record these items as "make-up".

All good points in this thread.  Thanks for asking.   My collection is a mix of all the types named.   I like to tinker with my stuff.  If a tinplate coupler is bent and the spring broken I replace it.   Best to replace with an old one, but if not available, I replace with new.   Kind of obvious to any casual viewer.  The important thing if selling is to tell the buyer exactly what it is.  But I rarely sell anything old.  I do sell  repops from time to time or modern stuff but always disclose complete details of their status.  

To me if you use new/used old stock it could be considered repair to original, you use repo parts then you have restored, If you paint it then you have refurbished 

Not sure there is any need for clinical nomenclature here!

If you sell it - just describe/note the work.

Tabs, stakes and rivets provide a practical way to signal the potential of a restoration or alteration, but do not guarantee it. Repair and maintenance is not restoration. Taking something apart and putting it back together is not the same as substantive alteration and restoration. Along the same lines, swapping a boiler/ part/ chassis between locomotives of similar patina, once completed, allows for no practical method of identification of originality of the assemblage.


If an item has been disassembled to the point of disturbing tabs, staking or rivets, then as far as I am concerned the item really cannot grade very high as a collectors item, and isn't likely to be something I'd be interested in owning as such.  It might make a great piece for operating. (I have both).

To each their own.

C W Burfle posted:

has been assembled from entirely correct original parts, and has no new paint or touch-ups, it would be considered original since there is no practical way to tell the difference.

If anything riveted, staked or tabbed is removed and reinstalled or replaced, most knowledgeable collectors usually can tell. Few people have the tools and knowledge of how to make these things look like factory work. The other tell is when replacement parts don't have the same patina as the rest of the item.

That is a good point and I would agree completely in my own opinion, but I would not term those items restored.  Replacement parts mean also not original, but I wouldn't term that restored either for the most part. In my view, this comes more into effect with the discussion of variations etc.  You can't say you have a rare variation when the tabs have been bent and reinstalled etc. It's like you can even tell when mounting screws have been removed simply by the feel and sound of them breaking loose after being factory installed for 70 years.  That is another means some collectors use to determine originality.

Maybe altered original would be a better term.  Either way I don't trouble myself with the definitions as I don't have anything that I feel fits the "need" to say it is "original" .  Really, who gives a poo if a 1941 prewar freight car as 1939 trucks...  Exceptions, yes, but by the norm not such a big deal.  Point is, if your just talking about 98% of the trains out there, it probably is not relevant.  Again, only my opinion and mileage varies.

Überstationmeister posted:

C W Burfle posted:

has been assembled from entirely correct original parts, and has no new paint or touch-ups, it would be considered original since there is no practical way to tell the difference.

If anything riveted, staked or tabbed is removed and reinstalled or replaced, most knowledgeable collectors usually can tell. Few people have the tools and knowledge of how to make these things look like factory work. The other tell is when replacement parts don't have the same patina as the rest of the item.

Tabs, stakes and rivets provide a practical way to signal the potential of a restoration or alteration, but do not guarantee it. Repair and maintenance is not restoration. Taking something apart and putting it back together is not the same as substantive alteration and restoration. Along the same lines, swapping a boiler/ part/ chassis between locomotives of similar patina, once completed, allows for no practical method of identification of originality of the assemblage.

Case in point, replacing a crumbled Blue Comet frame with another original blue frame from an otherwise scratched or ratty original Blue Comet.  Certainly not restored and I know for a fact this has always been done as I have had several highly regarded collectors tell me so to my face.  That said, this does not carry the same level of value as a completely untouched loco and I also know that and agree with that but it sure ain't worthless either.

Case in point, replacing a crumbled Blue Comet frame with another original blue frame from an otherwise scratched or ratty original Blue Comet.  Certainly not restored and I know for a fact this has always been done as I have had several highly regarded collectors tell me so to my face.  That said, this does not carry the same level of value as a completely untouched loco and I also know that and agree with that but it sure ain't worthless either.

 Did someone say a repaired item is worthless? 

Would something that has been repaired be of interest to me? ..... it depends.

I purchased a blue streak set at an Estate sale that had the tabs disturbed on every car. Nothing else was altered. It appears that the owner wanted to see what made it tick. It runs and still looks good on a high shelf, where it is on display.
But I wouldn't have purchased it at a show.


 

This thread made me curious, so I went back and looked at the standards again, with their commentary.

The standards do not explicitly address the question of whether an item was assembled at the factory or afterward. It seems safe to say that a grade of C-10 or C-9, where the definition includes the phrase "brand new" should exclude items assembled from parts of other items. For C-8 and C-7, the language is "all original, no missing parts," and in C-6, "may have minor parts replaced". At first blush, that would seem to imply that a made-up piece can grade no better than C-6. But it is clear from the commentary on the C-6 grade that "replacement" means "reproduction," thus: "minor parts may be replaced with properly marked reproduction parts." So, when the commentary says that an item graded C-8 or C-7 must be "100% original and authentic with no missing or replacement parts," it is not at all clear that this definition excludes an item which has had a missing original part replaced with another, correct original part. It only clearly excludes the use of reproduction parts. So the standards themselves seem to permit what Dennis says about swapping original frames.

Dennis Holler posted:

Case in point, replacing a crumbled Blue Comet frame with another original blue frame from an otherwise scratched or ratty original Blue Comet.  Certainly not restored and I know for a fact this has always been done as I have had several highly regarded collectors tell me so to my face.  That said, this does not carry the same level of value as a completely untouched loco and I also know that and agree with that but it sure ain't worthless either.

As CW points out, if one has to alter tabs or stakes or rivets in order to make the replacement, or even to service the motor on an otherwise-pristine item, then that will create damage or at least telltale marks which will lower the grade. My reading is that an item with such marks would grade no higher than C-7, since the only blemishes permitted in C-8 are "the effects of age or having been on display" and minor wear that shows it "may have been run."

For what it's worth (which maybe isn't a lot).

C W Burfle posted:

I purchased a blue streak set at an Estate sale that had the tabs disturbed on every car. Nothing else was altered. It appears that the owner wanted to see what made it tick. It runs and still looks good on a high shelf, where it is on display.

But I wouldn't have purchased it at a show.


 

Excellent point, that last line .... one that I share but didn't realize. I similarly bought my Blue Comet from an individual who declared he was the 2nd owner ... his dad was the first. Then gave me the whole story in detail Very proud to be the third owner!

C W Burfle posted:

Case in point, replacing a crumbled Blue Comet frame with another original blue frame from an otherwise scratched or ratty original Blue Comet.  Certainly not restored and I know for a fact this has always been done as I have had several highly regarded collectors tell me so to my face.  That said, this does not carry the same level of value as a completely untouched loco and I also know that and agree with that but it sure ain't worthless either.

 Did someone say a repaired item is worthless? 

 

No, and I didn't suggest that someone on this thread did say so.  I merely stated that by comparison an altered item while not worth as much as an unaltered item is not worthless either.  Nothing more than that.  Your welcome to read what ever you want into my comment however. That said CW, we seem (at least in my view) to have the same outlook on this discussion.

btw, if you ever feel the need to rid yourself of that beater Blue Streak, just let me know .  I won't turn an altered train away providing the price is right  but that is just me.

I have no issue with those who choose to hold higher standards than I or who limit their scope to the more original and or perfect items.  It's all good. 

Keep in mind, you can have this same discussion with the contents of a set.  I think we all prefer to purchase a complete set when we are more easily assured that it is all original and the components present were the exact ones shipped originally.

Excellent point, that last line .... one that I share but didn't realize. I similarly bought my Blue Comet from an individual who declared he was the 2nd owner ... his dad was the first. Then gave me the whole story in detail Very proud to be the third owner!


My preference is to buy trains "in the wild", from the folks who originally purchased the trains when they were new. For the past few years I've been keeping those purchases intact. What ever the folks had stays together, regardless if items were part of a factory set, or items purchased as add-ons.

So, when the commentary says that an item graded C-8 or C-7 must be "100% original and authentic with no missing or replacement parts," it is not at all clear that this definition excludes an item which has had a missing original part replaced with another, correct original part.

There is no consensus on this point.

Honestly, I think things have gotten a little out of hand.
The TCA postwar grading guide is 112 pages.
The TCA prewar grading guide is 83 pages.
And the TCA paper and box grading guide is 110 pages.

Takes some of the fun away.

C W Burfle posted:

So, when the commentary says that an item graded C-8 or C-7 must be "100% original and authentic with no missing or replacement parts," it is not at all clear that this definition excludes an item which has had a missing original part replaced with another, correct original part.

There is no consensus on this point.

Honestly, I think things have gotten a little out of hand.
The TCA postwar grading guide is 112 pages.
The TCA prewar grading guide is 83 pages.
And the TCA paper and box grading guide is 110 pages.

Takes some of the fun away.

Now, that I agree with!

I'm in the business of restoring Gramophones & Phonographs, I use the word "rebuilt" to refer to mechanical work (usually not replacing any parts). The word "Restored" I use to describe either a complete aesthetic overhaul (refinishing, repainting, replating etc...) or a mechanical overhaul including extensive replacement of broken or worn parts. 

I've never used the word reconditioned, I looked it up and apparently it means touching up? But I would just use touch up or buff instead.

Regarding: "So, when the commentary says that an item graded C-8 or C-7 must be "100% original and authentic with no missing or replacement parts," it is not at all clear that this definition excludes an item which has had a missing original part replaced with another, correct original part."

I would suggest that "original" means that it is original to that specific train, whereas "authentic" means it could be taken from another train of the same model. Also, the document says that defects in a train will lower its value to that level of defect, regardless of the condition of the rest of the train:

"For an item to be graded at a specific level it cannot exhibit any of the flaws noted in lower grades. No flaw is too small to be considered in grading." (Charlie Weber and Glenn Stinson et al., "Train Collectors Association Grading Standards: A Guide to Using the Grading Standards on Prewar Trains and Accessories," Train Collectors Association, June 2005, <http://www.tcamembers.org/stan...0Grading%20Guide.pdf>, accessed January 16, 2018.

Thus, to me, this says that no train with exchanged parts can be rated higher than a C-6. Sounds rather harsh. Is there a way to get the TCA to clarify this point--is there an authority which can rule on such matters, and make the ruling official? Although the guidelines are certainly long, I still have a number of questions on grading standards.