NOS parts VS original to the bike parts?

[GuitarlCarl]

Was in a little discussion on facebook about parts. A guy had a totally worn and pitted ND axle cone and was looking for replacements. A gentleman posted how to turn the cone using a drill, noting that collectors value the originality to the bike. I think that's just crazy. The cone was already toasted and by the time you ground it down to be usable there wouldn't have been much left. I posted NOS. The gentleman then told me how expensive his bikes are and how his reputation demanded original. I may have overstepped my bounds when I posted that a cork sniffer I'm not, I ride my bikes and I pointed out that the OG poster was rebuilding his hub and looking for parts, and that I believe in safety not worn out parts that would fail if rode. My wonder is if the parts really are "New Old Stock" aren't they as good as original?

Carl.

 

[Fv2]

I think there's always gonna be two sides to this argument, but I'm with you here.
If the bike needed a new part back in the day, it wouldn't have been an issue to replace it with a factory part. I don't know why it would be any different today.

And I'm still pretty happy without a Facebook page.

 

[horsefarmer]

I agree with your points that sometimes parts are just worn out and need replacing. I would worry though that some new parts may be inferior import stuff. I would rather clean and reuse most back in the day "original" parts than just replace them with new.

 

[Wildcat]

If you're going to ride it, certain things have to be in good order to be safe. Classic cars don't lose value with new brake pads for example, they all have them unless they have never been driven. If the parts are useable, then some machining can happen, but not if NOS (New Old Stock) is available and really is the old quality parts. I'd hate to be 10 miles from home and my reworked bearings give out.