Restoration: how far should it go??

From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun Jun 15 14:56:49 2003

> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. There has been about the same feedback from
> most collectors, Get the thing working. There is certainly a wide gap
> between collectors of opinion one and opinion two. Most computer collectors
> however seem to be closer to opinion two than opinion one. As long as there
> is no attempt to hide the "Repair/restoration" most people seem to think
> it's O.K. to do whatever is necessary to get the system going. Writing a

Thsi is of course entirely up to you, as it's your machine. But it really
saddens me to see a classic computer that could run again but which is
never given the chance. Incidentally, I was reading a book on clock
repair (another of my interests...) which makes much the same comment --
many clock enthusiasts are saddened by non-working clocks that could be
got to run again.

> "log" or recording all repairs seems to be a common idea. I suppose if it's
> recorded anyone further researching the system/part has a fair chance to see
> what has been done to restore it.

Yes. There are several purposes in keeping the log. The first is so that
any future collector/restorer knows what's been done, what is not
original, and so on. The second is so that _you_ know what's been done
when you have to fix the machine next time, and you find it no longer
agrees with the service manual. If the service manual is loose sheets in
a ring binder or some other form of binding where you can add pages, then
I think it's reasonable to add pages documenting the modicifications (or
to copy a page, then make ammendments to it, and keep _both_ the original
and the updated on in the binder).

-tony
Received on Sun Jun 15 2003 - 14:56:49 BST