what is considered original?

It is only original one time.  That would be reconditioned even if you replaced it with nos wire.  IMHO.

reconditioned... ok,  can see that taking care of replacing the wiring, but it seems to be a little more in this case.  even if reconditioning included replacing damaged or missing parts with originals, in this case the 'reconditioned' car is something that didn't exist before the reconditioning started.

 

i really can't think of another manufacturer major manufacturer that this sort of practice is even possible.  unfortunately this also accounts for a large number of faked cars, some of which are even in print (eg, Greenberg Marx Vol 1, ...many examples).  the red frame searchlight was a valid Marx production car, ...there's now just one more out there that was never factory made.

 

by the way, for anyone thinking i destroyed a factory error removing the wrong frame from the reefer in the first place, ...this is practice was actually too common with Marx production to really be considered a rare or even an uncommon piece by most collectors.  apparently the attitude at Marx was to get the product out the door even if substitutions had to be made.

Since you asked: IMHO, you could call it a repaint. It is not original Marx.

It is an assortment of original parts. IMO, the fact that the factory could have made it is not the same as saying that this particular car is original.

 

This is similar to Madison Hardware's long-standing practice of using parts to make "originals" to sell. The fact that many are now impossible to identify from true factory-made originals just complicates the life of a collector.

 

But, when the origin of a parts-made car is known, such as in the case of yours, that info should be passed on in some way for the sake of possible future owners (perhaps a string tag that says, made from parts in 2013).

 

The value can then be determined by prospective buyers who will know the origin.

 

IMO, collecting is as much a preservation of the history of items as it is the mere acquisition of items. Ideally, as much documentation as possible should be preserved for each item, whether we are talking about a $5 piece or a $500 piece.

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

sort of agree with all the comments except for calling this a repainted piece.  both upper and frame are in great condition, not to mention that a i'd rate a repaint of a litho'ed piece well below C6.

 

my goal was not to deceive anyone as this went into my own red frame consist and i will try to note its origin somewhere.  frankly the story about how it came into being to me is worth more than an original car which isn't extremely common, but also far from what i'd call a rare Marx car.

 

as an operator's tip with this car, i'd definitely suggest a thorough inspection before applying power as most of the wiring i've seen in these is typically cracked from age and it only takes a turn of the light on its pivot before the insulation gives away creating a nice power to ground short.

 

 

may as well ask here... is there anyone/ company who specializes in reproduction wire types?  it would be nice to find some of the original type wire or perhaps even something better that will withstand flexing when following a mechanical movement as in this car and others like it.  i'm thinking close might be as good as it gets seeing some materials are probably on the FTC taboo list these days.

 

thanks for the input.

cheers...gary

Nicely said Jim. It's a pity that perhaps a little more attention is not paid to the not so expensive side of the market. All too often the waters are becoming muddied when owners take a lot of liberties when it comes to refurbishing etc as there is the prevailing perception the item is cheap so it doesn't matter. In this particular case the history is already known, as is the companies predisposition for mix and matching parts, however I would personally still be erring on the side of caution.

I'm one for keeping things as close  to when they left the factory as possible.

George Tebolt carries cloth-covered wire.

 

I guess that while I appreciate what everyone is saying here, I see it a little differently.  Gary has said he is not repainting.  All the parts involved are original factory parts.  The resulting car is one that was made by Marx, and is neither a freak nor anything unusual or rare.

 

All cars are parts cars - whether assembled from parts bins in the factory or otherwise.  If there was a limited run of a few dozen or couple hundred cars, assembling more would seem inapropriate.  But he's not making an Ives Prosperity set here.  Marx made these by the thousands, and many thousand have been destroyed over the years.   Bringing one back with all Marx parts seems quite legitimate.

 

As I understand it, TCA practice requires labeling when refinished, not when parts are replaced with original parts.

 

Just my two and a half's worth.

 

what i'd really like to find is the wire that had that sort of rubbery insulation.  for locomotive rewiring, it can really take the twists and turns to get in and about e-units, etc.  for use in cars like this, it would withstand the abrasions of the mechanism movement.

i might take exception on the automatic degradation to C6 with replacement parts, but then again, i'm not a TCA member.  but i'll say that if i had to choose between a C6 piece as this vs. a C6 piece due to the true cosmetic condition (ie: paint loss, scratches, etc.), the choice would be simple.

 

i suppose the problem really comes into play where you are dealing with NOS.  assemble something from new parts and, ok, i can see why it shouldn't be considered C8 or higher even though its cosmetic condition would be in that range.

 

i'm sure there are opinions across the board on this.  i can see how someone might want a collection of NOS parts in original boxes, etc, yet i can also see the point of someone wanting to gather a bunch of replacement parts to realize a working model.

This is a very interesting question.  If not able to be considered original, your piece certainly bumps up to it as closely as possible.  And I, like you, would rather have a piece that was assembled out of NOS parts than a scratched original.  Intriguing.

Just my opinion, but to me original denotes an item that is, for the most part, as it came from the factory. For example in the collector car world an original 1969 Pontiac GTO Judge would have come from the factory as a Judge, and not later assembled from a regular GTO or Lemans. It must also have its original engine and typically when other major components have been changed (i.e. transmission or rear end that is usually disclosed) If it is one that was made from a lesser GTO or Lemans it is usually referred to as a "Clone" or "Tribute" car. I am not suggesting this need be applied to toy trains, but if it were me I would somehow mark it as having started life as a 555 reefer

 

Just my 2¢

 

Roland

quote:

As I understand it, TCA practice requires labeling when refinished, not when parts are replaced with original parts.

 

That might be the case if the parts were replaced with like original parts. For example: replacing damaged nickle journal boxes with nickle journal boxes. Changing a car's journal boxes to copper would be an alteration that would cause a car to no longer be original.

You can approach train collecting from lots of different viewpoints - all of which are valid or acceptable to different people.

 

Many of us like to see trains "saved" by parts replacement, rewiring, paint retouching, etc., etc. 

 

Others want everything left exactly as is to study how details of construction evolved over the years.

 

For example, replacing the broken boiler front on a 1950 Berkshire with one from a 1956 version will make it more attractive in the eyes of some, but that little wedge under the headlight will bother others since it wasn't there on the 1950 model (similar to the nickel/copper switch CW mentioned).

 

That is why many seek those treasures straight from an attic since those have had less chance of experiencing parts replacement, etc. The toy train historian/collector wants to see when the details changed, or what version of the 3459 dump car came with what set from the late 40s.

 

But, not everyone can be expected to value such details. Someone who restores a piece to operating condition may have muddied the historic details, but there is now one more operating item that would have otherwise probably ended up in a landfill.

 

The only real consensus seems to be that a "rare" item should not purposely be created for financial gain.

 

I may have taken this discussion farther than needed to answer the original question, but I think it's important to be tolerant of how others enjoy this hobby.

 

Hopefully, there are still lots of trains out there, enough to satisfy both the needs of the collector/historian as well as the collector/operator/restorer. Neither should be criticized for their approach to the hobby.

 

Jim

 

 

 

This is a question that has crossed my mind, too.  In my case, I was on the search for what I would consider a rare Marx plastic shell windup locomotive: a mechanical 490.  I finally located a 490 windup shell for a reasonable price, and added the correct riser gear motor with the proper original Marx slotted screws to hold it in place.  On one hand, it could be considered a collection of parts that were assembled into a locomotive; but on the other hand - the shell left the factory as part of a complete locomotive with a riser gear motor.  At some point, that motor was removed.  I "repaired" the locomotive with the addition of the correct type of motor.  If it was an automobile, it wouldn't have "matching numbers" and the value would be somewhat less than a "matching numbers" car with the exact same engine that was installed when it left the factory.  But on a toy train, there aren't any serial numbers on either the shell or the motor to compare.

 

So how do we classify my windup 490?  I'm not sure.  All I know is that should I ever sell it, I will disclose the fact that although it has the correct motor, it isn't the actual motor that was installed when it was new.

 

Anyway, this is a good, thought provoking discussion, and I appreciate everyone's input on the subject.

It should be obvious to any future purchaser that the parts are original, however, as a matter of ethics, you should disclose how the car came to be. Most savvy collectors can tell if tabs have been moved, etc, and all that stuff are warning flags that something may have been done to the piece in the past.

 

I believe the TCA sticker states something like "Refinished Tinplate", and may have check blocks to allow the buyer to see what's been changed.

 

This is really a grey area because you have made something that was not. It's not like taking a motor with good wheels and installing it in an engine that has bad wheels, or even replacing a piece of trim with like original trim, etc.

 

Although not a repaint, I find it more akin to say someone repainting a common yellow Lionel City of Denver in the two tone green colors and then calling it a rare variation. The originals were rare because few were made by the factory. Because it was restored in green does not make it rare. Similar to the above comments on the 1969 GTO Judge.

a twisted tab is tough to conceal, but with folded over tabs, the only tool i recommend is a fingernail.  despite what others say, Marx tabs are relatively tough and can usually withstand at least 2-3 cycles of straight to a 90° bend (one of these days i'm going to take a real junker and actually see what the practical limit is).

 

many of the Marx tin cars i've gotten in the past were in need of substantial cleaning and to this end i often disassembled the car only to return it exactly to its original state.  i find this practice no different than a Lionel collector removing the end screw of a boxcar to accomplish the same thing.  fortunately with my method of handling tabs, there is little evidence that is has been manipulated, however, i would not immediately deem any frame damage around the tabs to be a faked or modified car.

Samplingman,

what Overland Flyer is doing is very much like my GTO to Judge example. He is taking a Light from a more common Black frame car and puting it on a less common Red frame. I do not have any objection to that, and he has already said that his intention is to disclose that to anyone who would end up with it in the future. If he were to trying to represent it as a completly original red frame car, is what I think people would object to.

Roland

I would call it "constructed from original parts"

 

PHM