Unrestored equipment - to conserve or not?

[Lucien Nunes]

It's always interesting to open up a piece of kit for the first time and find no trace of recent repairs, mods or anachronisms. Really good examples with all original parts might be candidates for conservation, i.e. being kept as-is, without any attempt being made to get them working. When I was young, this always seemed odd to me, as I couldn't understand why one would want a radio or TV that just sat on a shelf and did nothing. Now, and with my museum curator's hat on, I sometimes balk at diving in and pulling out loads of original parts.

Clearly both approaches have their place. I've mentioned this before, along with my preferred method of finding duplicates or at least two similar models, keeping the better one original and overhauling the worse with the aim of getting best performance from it. That way I can contribute to the conservation approach while still having a reasonable number of items in working order.

What I am interested to know is:

How many people also like to keep sets in as-found condition or non-functional?

What factors do you consider when deciding which sets are worthy of this?

Do you sometimes relent and fix them up anyhow, or at least try to sneak a few repairs through the net to make something work without feeling that you have altered it in any way?

When you carry out major repairs or overhauls, do you think there is any value in saving removed parts? E.g. if you replaced a LOPT with a non-original type, would you keep the original with the set it came from, against the time that a rewind could be justified when the replacement eventually gave up too.

TIA
Lucien

[Tazman1966]

Hi Lucien.

There was some lengthy discussion in this thread some time back. There were many different points of view expressed. I wonder if some of the newer members would like to offer opinions?

[mark pirate]

In my opinion, a radio or tv was designed to work, not to sit gathering dust as a non functioning ornament!

As for keeping the originality of the set, i am a great believer of doing as little as possible to alter sets, i always like to re-stuff capacitors to keep sets as original as possible, but i have to admit to replacing nearly all capacitors with modern components in later, more common sets.

I also like to keep the original finish to the cabinets where possible, i have seen sets "restored" to as new condition, while i have to admit they do look great, i feel most of the character of years of use has been lost.

I suppose it is a very individual choice as to how you restore a set, but either way, if it is returned to working condition, it is then a functional item that can be enjoyed as it was intended.

Mark

[ms660]

Interesting...If it's a virgin but does not work..well if you have plenty of cash you could put it on display as a museum peice and obtain another one to get working...but then if you want the other one to have most of its original bits the chances are you will need yet another one as a scrapper..it's getting pricey.
I suppose it depends on it's rarity/historical place, if it's super rare as in only a handfull known to exist then I guess it's keep it in a suitable location in order to protect it against further degeneration.
If it's really old but lot's have survived then I like to get 'em going by re caps, R changing etc. I then tend to keep the original bits labled up in a bag.
This brings up the subject of to re stuff or not to re stuff, the juries still out with me on that one. If done with care it would take an expert to spot the difference, they look original but they are not..are they..maybe a bit like taking a shower with your mac on. Also it tends to hide a historical matter of fact unless documented..at the moment I still replace the whole component with a new one..a lot of conservation in buildings is done with new stone with nice sharp corners etc without trying to "blend" it in, I guess it forms part of the buildings historical "log" if you see what I mean.
As with all these things though it's subjective and in many cases a personal preference.
! feel now though that we are at a bit of a crossroads with what we would commonly call the old vintage stuff..pre war stuff ain't around like it used to be so with stuff like that i think we now have a responsibility to preserve in the best possible way that we are able to for future generations to enjoy.
I suppose to get the best "method" of preserving these sets we should really have a word with those who are a bit more in the know, as what means a "grand job" to us could well be a "b----- mess" to a historian type person.
Is there a conservator in the forum?

(I am not against re stuffing caps, what I said was just an observation of fact..so no flack please)

Cheers.

[Lucien Nunes]

I hadn't spotted those threads about the 904 but just read them with interest. The discussion there centred around a particularly rare item and for me that would be a no-brainer in favour of conservation, an opinion shared by many posters and corroborated by the poll result. The later, more common items seem to be more of a challenge when choosing an approach.

You would not perhaps look on a 60's portable record player as a thing of great beauty or significance, however some have survived intact and we have to consider that one day they might be as rare as prewar TVs are now. In the meantime such items are individually more at risk, since there is little obvious reason not to restore, even for the conscientious, because 'there's always one more out there'. Eventually that will not be true, at which time the buck-passing for responsibility to conserve stops. Suddenly you are the one who recapped the last 100% original Dansette.

Lucien

[crackle]

Being new to this hobby I am sorry to say I have been going in like a bull in a china shop.
When I have obtained an old radio all I can think of is to try and see if it works.
I do the usual checks and power it up slowly and just keep going until I start getting a result. I even forget to take photographs of the cabinet (I normally take plenty of the underside of the chassis)
The result is a nice looking radio which pleases me, and is working, but then I think to myself, I wish I had taken a picture of the dilapidated state it was in for comparison.

Take for instance my first purchase, it was advertised as a Philips Stella Radiogram. My £12 pound bid won and off I went to Ilford on a dark cold wet night in the car to collect it. The Gram was in a dark hallway and I checked it had the chassis and deck and loaded it into the car.
When I got it home I found it was a Stella gram and someone had hacked the cabinet apart to fit a Philips music centre from the 70’s into where the original deck and record storage was. I was rather disappointed.
Anyway after a fair time I have got it all working including rebuilding the cabinet and fitting a Garrard deck which is not the correct make and probably not quite of the same vintage but looks believable and I am happy.
I would love to show you all the damage that had been done before I got it and the finished article but alas all I can do now is photo the finished thing.

I think as time goes on I will become more methodical.

Any way I think what I am saying is, you have a hobby like this for your own reasons and in my case it is the excitement of finding what is wrong and getting it going and making the cabinet look presentable. I don’t believe it is possible to be completely authentic in the pursuit of this pastime.

Mike

[ms660]

Hello Lucien, yes..what you say in the last part of your post about sixties stuff is true, I feel that time is fast approaching with pre war stuff and later stuff made in smaller quantities.
Maybe a there is a museum for totaly original examples..trouble is if we paid a lot for it would we want to let it go?

Spitfires/hurricanes/lancasters were made in there thousands (I think) we don't what we've got 'till it's gone as the song goes.

Cheers.

[wireful3]

I must confess that I like to have sets in a functioning state but I don't know what I would feel if I ever found a rare set in original state. If it worked I would try to keep it as the original owner did - dusting and polishing with discretion.

I can see a need for great self-control from this state. If it failed for a trivial reason like misalignment of trimmers I would be quite happy to reset. If it was a dry joint I would be tempted to just resolder the joint but this is the start of drifting down a slippery slope.

What makes the decision difficult for me is that I can remember the days when there was still a service trade. Then many repairers just got a replacement component and put it in. This then becomes part of the history and perhaps worth keeping.

[neon indicator]

I think it depends on the rarity and value of the model.

If it's an especially "significant" model of rarity, then the solution may be to make a modern authentic* working reproduction and leave the Archaeological specimen in a "preserved" state.

If it's a quite plentiful model of especial significance and for daily use then repair & replacement to safe & reliable state may be preferable.

Obviously there is a grey area in between up to personal judgement.



[* Up to a point. A 2005 14" mono CRT in a reproduction pre 1960s cabinet with exactly original face tube mask/Bezel shap & size may be fine. An LCD would look stupid and tacky]

[Lucien Nunes]

depends on the rarity and value of the model

This can lead to some odd results. To continue with the examples above, if there were 5 surviving prewar TVs of model X, a dedicated owner might choose to conserve his excellent example while the remaining four were restored. Result: 1 conserved. If there were 1000 surviving record players of model Y, each might pass through the hands of an owner who applies that criterion. The natural conclusion would be that restoration is acceptable because their own example is of minimal historic significance due to the quantity made. Result: 0 conserved.

Lucien

[Paul_RK]

There's room for us all (with the possible exception of the Phantom... ) I've no quarrel with anyone who doesn't want to see a radio sitting around unless it's in working order, or, indeed, unless he has a use for it: I've just never been of that cast of mind. So, many of the sets leaving here lately are, give or take some initial cleaning, in the same untested condition in which they may have arrived twenty or more years earlier. I've done running repairs on many sets down the years, largely transistor ones, and more thorough restoration work on a few. Generally, though, for me to do anything much to a receiver here I have to have a specific motivation, which may be a high degree of curiosity as to how it may eventually perform, or may be the expectation that once restored it will see frequent use: and with seven or eight hundred radios on the premises that's never applied to a large proportion of them.

I suppose that, if interest in vintage items remains reasonably widespread, sets which have undergone few if any component replacements from new will eventually be especially desired, much as unassembled kits from the '60s and '70s attract interest now through their scarcity and the one-off scarcity of the experience offered in their building. I'd have the occasional dilemma were I a more enthusiastic restorer, for instance a 1931 Philips 2534 here whose lid lifts off to reveal four valves, with everything else concealed under a further metal cover sealed with seals marked "PR" in black wax. Clearly nothing aside from possibly valve replacement has been done to the set in its eighty years. Twenty years or so ago I applied power and it worked tolerably well, I'll not do so again out of consideration both for the components and for the stiff, crackly mains lead which of course couldn''t be replaced without breaking those seals. Quite possibly the set's the last of its kind never to have undergone any surgery, but in all likelihood someone will choose to restore it to a fully working condition sooner or later, and the world won't stop revolving when he does. It probably won't be me

Regards,
Paul

[MichaelR]

When I hear this sort of question I am often reminded of how I feel when looking around an aircraft museum.

For me my greatest interest ( and what would motivate me to support the museum ) is when you see aircraft that are either fit/maintained to fly. You can appreciate the completed piece because not only has it been restored to how it looked when new but it smells , sounds and flies as it was new.

Static displays are ok but just do not appeal to me.

My interest is not domestic radio but Military, I want to use the receivers/transmitters and keep them working and in tip top performance. My own view on "stuffing components is I know against alot of opinion on here and please do not pour flak on what I say as it is just my opinion but unless it is part of the appearance of the kit why go to the bother of keeping the "innards" as original components.If the piece had been kept in service and used then there would have been many component changes over time these relatively new components would be part of the history of the piece surely.

On military receivers it is quite often fully refurbished even in service, REME often went thorugh these complete rebuilds on sets such as the N0 19 set.

Heavily modifying/butchering kit I do not agree with mainly now because it is becoming increasingly scarce but I must ashamedly admit to having done some of this in the 60's when just a youth.

Mike

[Sideband]

As a member of the National Trust, several places I visited last year had vintage radio's...non-working but after sneaking a look, they were definately originals and appeared to be complete (there was one exception to this where a mock-up had been built for a specific reason). One such place was Winston Churchill's home where there was a magnificent radiogram on display, the original one he had purchased.

It was all roped off so I couldn't get too close but I could see enough to show that eveything looked complete and original.

I approached the Trust, asking if they would like any of the original sets repaired/restored particularly mentioning the radiogram above.

They politely refused, saying that they would rather preserve the items as they were and as original as possible. They pointed out that due to various regulations, they would probably not be allowed to run them for any length of time (or at all) even if they were restored so there seemed little point in having them restored to working order if they were not going to be allowed to use them.

I could see their point so under these circumstances, preservation is probably better. Pity as I think there were PX4's in that radiogram! It would have been quite loud I think!


SB

[neon indicator]

they would probably not be allowed to run them for any length of time (or at all) even if they were restored

That's simply Policy of their own, there is no such external regulation, imposition or law.

But it's the simplest solution for them with least cost and effort.

[Sideband]

They gave the impression it was 'elf and safety' and a possible fire risk.


SB

[dennishoy]

It's just another hobby (not an obsession) for me so the aim is to assess it, then ensure I only put a certain amount of time into getting it working safely again.
Ok, so there is a rust spot on the chassis, then who cares as long as it works? Similarly, if a capacitor has to be changed, then any suitable replacement will do in my opinion. There are literally hundreds of old sets floating around which do not sell for £2-£5 at local auction and presumably then go to the tip. Anything rare goes elsewhere and ends up selling for a lot of money at which point (for me) it ceases to be a hobby.
I've made sets work again, then stripped them for parts to recycle. I've burnt sets with woodworm infected cases. I can't get worked up over issues like this. Sorry.

You would not put a stamp collection worth £10 into an empty Stanley Gibbons album costing £150 and I cannot see the point in spending hundreds of man-hours doing-up a cheap, massed produced set. Life is far too short to fit everything into the allocated time and people should have multiple interests and hobbies or they risk becoming obsessive.

Just my thoughts.....

[HamishBoxer]

Good point.

[JoshWard]

I am also a classic car fanatic and what amazes me when looking around car shows is the fact the cars that win prizes are of course the concours ones. These are cars which are in as near as possible to original condition. However, this is sometimes false as they have been restored in a way similar to how they were made with new components here and there but disguised (similar to restuffing), but there are also those cars that are original with very low miles. They are brought to shows on trailers, and taken home again and left in a heated garage. To me this is a complete waste of a beautiful object that was designed by craftsmen to be used! I use my Morris everyday and if a part is faulty I change it. I love seeing people's faces when they see this object being used rather than sitting about having money poured into it with little enjoyment coming out at the other end (believe it or not some Marinas are treated this way, with heated garages etc).
I will happily restore any object that comes to me. I see it as a tribute to those who designed it, built it, bought it, used it and loved it in the first place.
I am also strongly against re-stuffing capacitors etc, new components are parts of a sets history and let's not forget the possible fraud aspect when re-stuffing. What about in 50 years time when I am restoring the sets that have had caps restuffed, and I will be scratching my head wondering why a set seemingly 100 years old with what appears to be Hunts capacitors is still working!
I do believe a few examples should be preserved as original, but there are hundreds of valve radios in museums untouched. Let them stay there, but everytime I see them I do feel a little sad. These objects would have been pride of place and brought so many emotions to those who used them with the signals they received. I don't want a dusty wooden object, I want a historical object that talks to me. If radio and television sets are left in silence then so are vast amounts of our social history.

Josh.

[Paul LS]

An opportune time for this thread to come up. I have been "mulling" over whether or not to restore an Ekco 313 AC from 1930. It is in an untouched "pristine" condition.

Normally I wouldn't think twice about restoring an old radio... I am of the opinion that a radio was built to be listened to... not just sitting there looking "pretty". And most radios I have restored have been in fairly bad condition... so they weren't that "pretty" to begin with anyway. :0)

However, this Ekco 313 AC is in very good condition... and it has made me think twice about restoring it. You never know, it may be working perfectly anyway.

Paul.

[ms660]

From my own confessions..if the set has a fault, I replace the old component with a brand new one (R's/C's etc.) taking care as far as is practical to locate it in the same place (layout) if the faulty component does not get replaced ie: the set remains duff, then slowly over a period of time it gets robbed, scavenged etc 'till it's only fit for scrap. Yes I'm guilty (less so as I get older) but who isn't.
As I and others have said in previous posts, replacing old parts with more modern stuff is part of the sets history and in many cases it is a testament to its original design..otherwise why would we try to save the set.
I had the same dilema with my trusty old motor,
Chassis like a cullinder.
Replaced with a repro.
Still survives and in daily use.
If I didn't replace, said vehicle would have been weighed in.

Cheers.