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.

CountOrlock posted:

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.

Unfortunately, the standards do not include definitions of terms. That is why I was digging through the commentary for clues about what a "replacement" was, so I could work my way back to a definition of "original and authentic" that was supported by something firmer than just my own ideas about what those words should mean.

But experience trumps all. CW has been collecting for a long time, so he would know, when he says that there is no consensus on whether original parts can be swapped with other original parts.

Takes some of the fun away.

Nonsense! Rules-lawyering is a hobby unto itself!

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.

If you are a member, you can ask. If not, then no.

CountOrlock posted:

...

"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. ...

i have a Lionel car brand new in an unopened box, but you can easily see through the window that it's missing a truck... what i'd consider a pretty major flaw.  C10, or ...?

 Steve "Papa" Eastman posted:

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

Steve, 

Not according to how I read the TCA standards, it would likely be an R-2.

"R-2 Fair—A non-professional restoration: Color, texture and nish clearly different from the original. Other items, such as non-authentic wiring are also evident."

Now, clearly not all R-2 restorations are worth the same. I always remind myself that the standards are a grading standard, not a pricing standard. In fact, for some  less valuable items, a custom restoration is more valuable than an original. I was following some custom Marx WM Crooks train sets on eBay that had beautiful detail and colors. Some of them went for significant sums.

George

http://www.tcamembers.org/stan...GradingStandards.pdf

Dennis Holler posted:

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.

Same level of "grading" Dennis. Value is determined by the buyer and seller. Look at the Greenberg guides. Bruce doesn't try to give a price based on the TCA grade. Same with auctions. TCA grades may be a factor in determining value, but are certainly not determinative. For example, one of the most expensive auction sales recently was the Marklin bridge from the Greene collection. All of the flags on it were reproductions. 

George

TCA grading standards exist to facilitate communications among train collectors, nothing more, nothing less. The original standards were universally accepted among the train collecting community, and were adopted by most, if not all other organizations.

I don' know whether the same can be said about the new standards that the TCA uses today.

Businesses and publishers are free to do as they wish. 

That written, I thought that the Greenburg guides used TCA standards. But I haven't purchased a guide in years. How do they define conditions.

By the way, Does Bruce Greenburg have anything to do with Greenberg guides?

I thought he sold the business years ago.

and this is why I like trains in this condition...no argument on the grade...

C W Burfle posted:

TCA grading standards exist to facilitate communications among train collectors, nothing more, nothing less. The original standards were universally accepted among the train collecting community, and were adopted by most, if not all other organizations.

I don' know whether the same can be said about the new standards that the TCA uses today.

Businesses and publishers are free to do as they wish. 

That written, I thought that the Greenburg guides used TCA standards. But I haven't purchased a guide in years. How do they define conditions.

By the way, Does Bruce Greenburg have anything to do with Greenberg guides?

I thought he sold the business years ago.

I think they used the older standards that we are familiar with, at least the guides I have do that.  Good, VG, EX, LN, etc..  I don't know, it's been 20 years since I was TCA active so who knows.

Steamer posted:

and this is why I like trains in this condition...no argument on the grade...

 

Me, I like finding ultra rare production samples at estate auctions...  You can just  imagine my surprise when I came across the remains of the fabled 765E Prewar Commodore Vanderbilt... I was just overjoyed! I understand there were two others besides mine, of course Bill Vagell had one but I'm not sure where the other one is.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

It has been my pleasure over the years to use the services of Dr. Tinker (David Laughridge) to service some of my pre-war locos.  Recently I discovered that he not only is a marvelous mechanic, but is also quite the author.   Two of his works that I purchased recently are the OGR Publication Dr. Tinker Repairs Toy Trains Vols. 1 and 2, and Dr. Tinker's "The Coupler" Newsletter reprints.   

When you read his works, you begin to understand the tremendous joy one can get from leaving the troubles of the day behind to dive into making an old toy work like new again.  His philosophy of the repair and the joy he obviously feels doing this work is truly inspirational.

Why do we always think about the money.  Can't we just have fun.  Running trains, fixing them, restoring them.  They are toys...enjoy them.

His books are still available from him by following his web site.  Dr. Tinker Toy Trains

Dave Laughridge (pronounced Lockridge) would certainly love to hear from you with your repair and parts needs, and maybe some advice.   

Well Put Jim.

Definitely will do, except I just checked his website, and it says vol. 1 is sold out.

I truly miss Dr Tinker's column in the magazine, along with Walt Hulseweder's.

CountOrlock posted:

Definitely will do, except I just checked his website, and it says vol. 1 is sold out.

I have the good fortune to live only a 15 minute drive from Dave.  When I first met him, that volume was sold old but he sold me a photocopy version.  I suggest sending him a personal email and asking if you can get one - dave@drtinkertraqins.com

C W Burfle posted:

TCA grading standards exist to facilitate communications among train collectors, nothing more, nothing less. The original standards were universally accepted among the train collecting community, and were adopted by most, if not all other organizations.

I don' know whether the same can be said about the new standards that the TCA uses today.

Businesses and publishers are free to do as they wish. 

That written, I thought that the Greenburg guides used TCA standards. But I haven't purchased a guide in years. How do they define conditions.

By the way, Does Bruce Greenburg have anything to do with Greenberg guides?

I thought he sold the business years ago.

CW,

Yes, I heard he sold. That is a little off point, because many of us still have his original works. Then, I saw he is producing new volumes. I haven't checked, but my point was he grades price by condition, yet doesn't use TCA to determine condition. Even then, his prices are a guideline of past purchases. In the stock market they will warn you that "past performance does not indicate future returns".

I do not collect trains as an investment. It is a hobby. Maybe I (or my heirs) can get some of my cost outlay back when I no longer need these trains. If you have surpassed the rest of us (no offense) and made money on train collecting over the long run, then you deserve a place of high esteem in our hobby. Please, I don't mean this as ridicule, but I believe you have invested a great deal of time and real money into trains for your passion, not for gain.

George

I haven't checked, but my point was he grades price by condition, yet doesn't use TCA to determine condition.

I grabbed two Greenberg guides off my shelf.

One was the Greenberg's Guide to Lionel Trains 1970-91, Volume I, Motive power and rolling stock.
The definitions do not exactly match the definitions currently defined by the TCA.
However, they do match the definitions used in an earlier edition of his books.

In the 1982 edition of Greenberg's Price Guide to Lionel Trains, the conditions are described as being those of the TCA:

"For each item we provide four categories: Good, Very Good, Excellent, and Mint. The Train Collector's association defines conditions as: "..........

So Greenberg didn't adopt the new condition descriptions when the TCA released them. Neither did most of the people I know in the hobby. They still tend to use terms Mint, excellent, very good, etc, as opposed to C-10, C-7, or C-6.

Good point on Bruce's books being older than the "new" grading standards. I was actually thinking about the reference guides instead of the price guides, but you bring up a valid point. In the reference guides I recall seeing only two to three price points depending on the manufacturer being covered.

In the Greenberg Guide to Lionel Trains vol IV for example, he only priced VG and EX. He has a great discussion on values, in which he says that values are determined by multiple factors, but condition is the most consistent determining factor. I think that is true for the best condition trains, but for anything less, price seems to uncouple from grade today.

I haven't bought a  price guide recently nor looked for one. Today there is lots of information available on the internet of what items sold for, usually with pictures of the item. Most of the sites make you sign up to get access to the prices.

George

Dennis Holler posted:

Steamer posted:

and this is why I like trains in this condition...no argument on the grade...

 

 

Me, I like finding ultra rare production samples at estate auctions...  You can just  imagine my surprise when I came across the remains of the fabled 765E Prewar Commodore Vanderbilt... I was just overjoyed! I understand there were two others besides mine, of course Bill Vagell had one but I'm not sure where the other one is.

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

Yeah, I think Bill Vagell's was cadmium plated like yours. I don't think his has spot putty on it, though.

Repairing, restoring or reconditioning toy trains of any vintage can easily descend into a number of gray or indeterminate areas! Unless you are an ultra purist collector, the joy of getting the train to RUN again, as it once did, should suffice! I am with brother Jim Katz on this one!  :-)

I'm finding this a fascinating discussion because most of my activity with Lionel and other old trains is at my workbench fixing them to make them look good and operate well.  
I'm not sure to tell others whether I'm reconditioning, restoring, refurbishing, renewing, rebuilding or renovating them.

I'll describe what I'm doing and ask which re.....ing word shoudl I use. 

 I have a couple of definite restoration projects and I'll want to get a lot of advice on that from this group - but I think that needs to be a separate topic.

Most of my work is on stuff that comes from a basement or attic after sitting there for 50 to 60 years.  Nearly all locomotives from that era can be made to work well and most can be returned to at least reasonable and often very good or even excellent appearance.  Last year I sold six of them and I'm expecting to get at least a half dozen out the door in the next six months.

I strip them as far as possible,taking apart anythng that can be removed with a screwdriver and pliers, including tabs that block access to lights and whistles.  All electical contact surfaces are cleaned - commutators, brushes, contacts, etc.  Old grease is removed, rolling chassis's in a solvent bath as needed.  Whistle and horn relays are tuned.  I'm usually successful in turning out a Lionel or AF engine that runs like new (or so it seems to me).

I spend a lot of time on all visible parts with a toothbrush and detergent and WD40 on white stuff and light rust and corrosion, also judicious wire-brushing.  Also limited paint touch up to get uniform appearance of all parts.

---------------------

So what do all of you call what I'm doing ?  Which re.....ing word shoudl I use ?