"You have the right to remain ignorant, and anything you know will be held
against you."
Is anyone involved or investigating the impact of the new Final Ruling for
EPA reg.'s on lead that took effect March 6th, 2001?

Best,
Leland

PS Don White (Analyst/Publisher)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald B. White" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:13 AM
Subject: Original, authentic, resstored, surviving...


> You guys have given me all kinds of things to comment upon, which I am now
> going to do at excessive length. You'd never know I used to edit a
> newsletter in which brevity was the soul of what was I saying?
>
> Originality: I remember one of my Morgan-owning friends, who also happens
> to design museum exhibits for a living (did the Titanic show at Nauticus
in
> Norfolk a few years ago) comparing my very original (under 20,000-mile)
> Morgan with his thrice-restored one. He said, "You can restore it again
and
> again, but it's only original once."
>
> Continuity of identity: The reference to the USS Constitution is apt,
since
> it was in the maritime context I first encountered this idea, which also
> applies to antique cars and other artifacts. As Joshua Slocum wrote in his
> book Sailing Alone around the World (he was the first to do so), referring
> to the boat in which he did this, the Spray, which he rebuilt from a hulk
> given him by a friend, a ship retains the same identity regardless of how
> much of it is replaced, so long as it is not all replaced at the same
time.
> As he used a part of the original keel and stem in his boat, it was,
> legally, the same boat. So it is with old cars, just like the old
> axe--which is how come street rods can be licensed as antique cars, and
kit
> cars (like the Gazelle) usually use the identity of the donor car for
> titling and registration.
>
> Authenticity: I separate this from originality because a repair or
> replacement could be authentic if it exactly resembles the original.
> Something original would be authentic; something authentic might not be
> original--an "authentic reproduction" though many things so described are
> not. The derivation from the root that leads to "author" which not only
> means creator but also master (authority), is interesting.
>
> Integrity: There's personal integrity, that is, trustworthiness, pride in
> one's work, honesty, all meaning that a person with this quality would be
> desirable to work with. There's structural integrity, that an object will
> hold together under the stresses for which it was made. Presumably
> artifacts made by a person of integrity are more likely to possess
> integrity themselves.
>
> In the whole originality/authenticity/integrity debate, seems to me there
> is an ethical or philosophical issue too. That is, what is the intended
> result? If I am restoring an antique car to display in a museum, I want it
> to be as authentic as possible, indeed original if available, but its
> integrity as a functioning machine is less important. If I intend it to be
> driven regularly (as all my cars are) I may make different choices. Which
> choices depend on my own taste in cars, the kind of driving intended, the
> practical utility of the choice, and how much it may differ from
authentic.
> I am using cars as an example because I have more direct experience with
> them and have been through this process with them, but I think it applies
> equally to buildings. I prefer, in a perfect world, to have historical
> artifacts be as historically correct as possible. At the same time, if
they
> have to be used in the modern world, there may be instances in which some
> loss of authenticity leads to much greater utility. But each instance will
> be different. At one extreme is the hot-rodder who uses almost nothing of
> the original car--akin to a facadectomy being called a historic building
> restoration. At the other is the museum exhibit which can't be used at
all.
> In my own car restorations, I keep the basic car authentic, and my rules
> for changes are that they must be reversible, invisible or unobtrusive,
and
> make a marked improvement. Putting a better transmission or an electronic
> voltage regulator in my 1965 Ford Mustang was OK because the car was still
> essentially the same. Dropping a modern engine into my 1929 Model A Ford
> would not have been acceptable because it was too big a change (and indeed
> would require so many other changes to keep everything balanced that the
> result would no longer be a Model A except in name). When my Morgan needs
a
> new transmission, I might upgrade from the original 4-speed to a 5-speed.
> Also one must sometimes take into consideration whether authentic parts
are
> available and decide whether a broken but original car is better than a
> modified but driveable one.
>
> AACA (Antique Automobile Club of America) has a judging class they call
> HPOF for Historic Preservation of Original Features. This came about
> because there was concern about cars which still had original paint or
> interiors being restored to new condition but at the cost of surviving
> examples of the original details. I have seen some original cars that were
> so well preserved it was hard to believe they had not been restored. Some
> of the HPOF cars, however, are very rough and not really enjoyable except
> to look at. So indeed would it have been better to restore them,
carefully,
> documenting everything and saving as much as possible of the original
parts
> that were being replaced so they could be preserved and studied? That's
the
> owner's choice, based on the intended use of the car. I am a little
> concerned about wearing out my original Morgan, but I intend to make it
> last as long as possible and when it needs rebuilding (in 10 years or so)
> to do so with care. I bought it to drive and if I couldn't drive it I
would
> lose interest in it.
>
> This applies to buildings too, as I'm sure you are all way ahead of me in
> thinking. A house to be lived in has different requirements from a house
to
> be part of a museum. And so on through the whole adaptive reuse thing,
> which often is just another term for gutting everything that made the
> building interesting. In my weekend realtor work, I am often seeing old
> houses (1920s-30s around here) in which very unfortunate renovation has
> been done, or some in which I hope the buyers will realise what is there
> and not make a mess of it. But (except maybe in small New England towns)
> there aren't any House Police to keep people from ruining their property.
> And the most jealously guarded American right is the right to know
nothing.
> "You have the right to remain ignorant, and anything you know will be held
> against you."
>
> I'd better send this before I really get going.
>
> Don White
> Associate Publisher
> Preservation Sourcebook
>