Patina
- Thread starter kingbling
- Start date
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
There is an adjustable spanner in the next room which has a beautiful patina. It also has slightly chewed up jaws. The chewed up jaws neither add to nor subtract from the patina. I'm not much of a metallurgist, but I would guess that the entire surface of that spanner is somewhat 'oxidised', although it shows no sign of ever having been 'rusty'. I have a few tools of various ages, some of them over 100 years old, some are pitted, some have patina, some have both and some have neither. Of those that are both patinated and pitted, I could live without the pitting, which is not part of the patina. No doubt the word is over-used and sometimes wrongly used, but if it is used in an advert it can be a good sign, being code for: 'I haven't f*cked with this. If you buy it what you do to it is your responsibility.'
Anyway, what follows is my little meditation on 'patina' and is likely to be full of romantic nonsense with little factual basis:
To me, 'patina' is in no way synonymous with neglect, although it can result from 'benign neglect'. In the context of old bikes, patina is the result of: a)oxidisation and other inevitable processes of 'deterioration', and b) more or less constant attention from a human to keep such processes from compromising structural integrity or function. In that sense, 'patina' is evidence that something has been both used, and cared for in use, for a long time- maybe a lifetime, or more. To develop patina, a bike has to spend a significant proportion of its time exposed to the elements, and a further significant proportion of its time in intimate contact with a human body, and for those parts of a bike which in normal operation you don't expect to come in contact with a human body , that means the cleaning and maintaining human hand. An object with 'patina' has an air of dependability, simply because it usually has been depended upon, to fulfil its function through fair and foul days, for a long time, and been generally humoured in its attempts to do so.
In theory I can acquire a brand new bike in say, 1969, and then leave it unseen and unused in some more or less protective storage space for fifty years. What will be discovered after fifty years is not 'patina'- not in my book, anyway.
Alternatively, if I acquire a brand new bike in 1969 and use it more or less constantly for fifty years, what 'patina' it holds will be a record of how much I have cared for the bike. If I scratch the downtube in 1970 without even noticing then or since, that is evidence that I do not care, and what I have fifty years later is not 'patina', it is damage. If I notice, and care, I usually take some action, which may or may not involve a touch-up. After fifty years my bike might be missing an awful lot of its original paint, some of which might not have been replaced, but if I have noticed and cared, with a view towards maintaining structural integrity and function (and this notice and care continues) I am likely to end up with 'patina'.
As a devil's advocate side-note I'd just like to observe that intact paint or chrome are themselves arguably evidence of a 'can't be arsed' attitude, because it is theoretically feasible to keep a bare steel bike structurally sound without paint, just inconveniently time/labour intensive. (And just for the record, all my road-going frames have full paint coverage as far as I am aware.)
So, 'patina' is in the subtly rounded corners and superficially oxidised facets of a headset locknut which has generally had the right-size spanner used on it for thirty years and has been periodically kept clean 'enough' to accept that spanner. It is not in the grossly rounded corners and rusty facets of a headset locknut that has had the wrong size spanner used on it too (in)frequently, and neither is it likely to be in the headset locknut that never saw a spanner in thirty years.
It seems some people are just insensitive to the charms of patina. To me no paint or piece of fabric or leather feels right until some of the shine has gone and the colour faded, but my 'worn in' is somebody else's 'worn out'. And that is not to say that I do not recognise a category of things that I consider to be 'worn out'. I'm just baffled by people who seem to have no 'worn in'- it is either 'brand spanking new' or 'worn out'. Consumer culture has a vested interest in inculcating such an attitude.
I might be enthusing over the Elm chair-seat that has been worn to its present state by five generations of buttocks, which chair-seat the person next to me cannot witness without feeling an almost uncontrollable urge to reach for a tin of polyurethane varnish.
Patina is both fragile and vanishing from the world, dependent as it is on having: a)a surface which will accept it, on an object with sufficient solidity and longevity to allow it to develop, and b)on any given person having few enough things that any thing can receive its due attention. The world is increasingly full of human artifacts which will not accept patina- plastic things, mainly, often enough masquerading as wood or leather or whatever. Both literally and figuratively the veneer has got thinner and thinner, until there really is insufficient physical depth between the shiny surface and the substrate for patina to get a foothold.
Back before consumer culture and built-in obsolescence, you likely had one bike which you depended on exclusively for personal transportation for the rest of your lifetime for all you knew. It could hardly help but develop either 'patina' or 'damage', depending on your attitude towards it. If you have ten bikes, none of which are your primary means of transportation, none of them get enough of the combination of 'use' and 'cared for in use' to develop much 'patina' by my definition.
A related consideration is that, believe it or not, some people still do have just one old bike- maybe a rather nice, high quality old bike- that is their primary mode of transport. They use it for their daily business rather than for club rides or Eroica type events or training/competition. So sometimes they have to lock it up and leave it. In that case, tatty cosmetics can be a tactic to deter the opportunist thief. Any discerning thief would see through the tactic immediately of course, and might even be thinking, in all good conscience: 'That bike needs liberating and given a damn good polish and respray!'
Ultimately where a person stands with regard to 'patina' boils down to two irreconcilable orientations toward 'the past'. One person wants to look at an old bike and think: 'Looking at that I cannot believe it's not 1975 still!' and another person wants to look at an old bike and think: 'Looking at that I realise how long ago 1975 was!' The 'time-warp' experience versus the long plod through inclement seasons from 'then' to 'now'. Some people can do both.
If it could talk, the patinated component might be saying: 'I've self evidently been around for a fair few years, doin' my thing, and I'll likely as not carry on a while longer', while his shiny 'NOS' brother might be saying: 'If I look too good to be true for something my age... maybe I am?'
There is an adjustable spanner in the next room which has a beautiful patina. It also has slightly chewed up jaws. The chewed up jaws neither add to nor subtract from the patina. I'm not much of a metallurgist, but I would guess that the entire surface of that spanner is somewhat 'oxidised', although it shows no sign of ever having been 'rusty'. I have a few tools of various ages, some of them over 100 years old, some are pitted, some have patina, some have both and some have neither. Of those that are both patinated and pitted, I could live without the pitting, which is not part of the patina. No doubt the word is over-used and sometimes wrongly used, but if it is used in an advert it can be a good sign, being code for: 'I haven't f*cked with this. If you buy it what you do to it is your responsibility.'
Anyway, what follows is my little meditation on 'patina' and is likely to be full of romantic nonsense with little factual basis:
To me, 'patina' is in no way synonymous with neglect, although it can result from 'benign neglect'. In the context of old bikes, patina is the result of: a)oxidisation and other inevitable processes of 'deterioration', and b) more or less constant attention from a human to keep such processes from compromising structural integrity or function. In that sense, 'patina' is evidence that something has been both used, and cared for in use, for a long time- maybe a lifetime, or more. To develop patina, a bike has to spend a significant proportion of its time exposed to the elements, and a further significant proportion of its time in intimate contact with a human body, and for those parts of a bike which in normal operation you don't expect to come in contact with a human body , that means the cleaning and maintaining human hand. An object with 'patina' has an air of dependability, simply because it usually has been depended upon, to fulfil its function through fair and foul days, for a long time, and been generally humoured in its attempts to do so.
In theory I can acquire a brand new bike in say, 1969, and then leave it unseen and unused in some more or less protective storage space for fifty years. What will be discovered after fifty years is not 'patina'- not in my book, anyway.
Alternatively, if I acquire a brand new bike in 1969 and use it more or less constantly for fifty years, what 'patina' it holds will be a record of how much I have cared for the bike. If I scratch the downtube in 1970 without even noticing then or since, that is evidence that I do not care, and what I have fifty years later is not 'patina', it is damage. If I notice, and care, I usually take some action, which may or may not involve a touch-up. After fifty years my bike might be missing an awful lot of its original paint, some of which might not have been replaced, but if I have noticed and cared, with a view towards maintaining structural integrity and function (and this notice and care continues) I am likely to end up with 'patina'.
As a devil's advocate side-note I'd just like to observe that intact paint or chrome are themselves arguably evidence of a 'can't be arsed' attitude, because it is theoretically feasible to keep a bare steel bike structurally sound without paint, just inconveniently time/labour intensive. (And just for the record, all my road-going frames have full paint coverage as far as I am aware.)
So, 'patina' is in the subtly rounded corners and superficially oxidised facets of a headset locknut which has generally had the right-size spanner used on it for thirty years and has been periodically kept clean 'enough' to accept that spanner. It is not in the grossly rounded corners and rusty facets of a headset locknut that has had the wrong size spanner used on it too (in)frequently, and neither is it likely to be in the headset locknut that never saw a spanner in thirty years.
It seems some people are just insensitive to the charms of patina. To me no paint or piece of fabric or leather feels right until some of the shine has gone and the colour faded, but my 'worn in' is somebody else's 'worn out'. And that is not to say that I do not recognise a category of things that I consider to be 'worn out'. I'm just baffled by people who seem to have no 'worn in'- it is either 'brand spanking new' or 'worn out'. Consumer culture has a vested interest in inculcating such an attitude.
I might be enthusing over the Elm chair-seat that has been worn to its present state by five generations of buttocks, which chair-seat the person next to me cannot witness without feeling an almost uncontrollable urge to reach for a tin of polyurethane varnish.
Patina is both fragile and vanishing from the world, dependent as it is on having: a)a surface which will accept it, on an object with sufficient solidity and longevity to allow it to develop, and b)on any given person having few enough things that any thing can receive its due attention. The world is increasingly full of human artifacts which will not accept patina- plastic things, mainly, often enough masquerading as wood or leather or whatever. Both literally and figuratively the veneer has got thinner and thinner, until there really is insufficient physical depth between the shiny surface and the substrate for patina to get a foothold.
Back before consumer culture and built-in obsolescence, you likely had one bike which you depended on exclusively for personal transportation for the rest of your lifetime for all you knew. It could hardly help but develop either 'patina' or 'damage', depending on your attitude towards it. If you have ten bikes, none of which are your primary means of transportation, none of them get enough of the combination of 'use' and 'cared for in use' to develop much 'patina' by my definition.
A related consideration is that, believe it or not, some people still do have just one old bike- maybe a rather nice, high quality old bike- that is their primary mode of transport. They use it for their daily business rather than for club rides or Eroica type events or training/competition. So sometimes they have to lock it up and leave it. In that case, tatty cosmetics can be a tactic to deter the opportunist thief. Any discerning thief would see through the tactic immediately of course, and might even be thinking, in all good conscience: 'That bike needs liberating and given a damn good polish and respray!'
Ultimately where a person stands with regard to 'patina' boils down to two irreconcilable orientations toward 'the past'. One person wants to look at an old bike and think: 'Looking at that I cannot believe it's not 1975 still!' and another person wants to look at an old bike and think: 'Looking at that I realise how long ago 1975 was!' The 'time-warp' experience versus the long plod through inclement seasons from 'then' to 'now'. Some people can do both.
If it could talk, the patinated component might be saying: 'I've self evidently been around for a fair few years, doin' my thing, and I'll likely as not carry on a while longer', while his shiny 'NOS' brother might be saying: 'If I look too good to be true for something my age... maybe I am?'
I think it's always that first mark that does it I seem to be very precious about the bike up to that point and after that it's hey ho ride it and enjoy it. Like my Ribble that I've built up over Christmas it's not been ridden yet and I'm sort of dreading that first ride but at the same time looking forward to it but it's not sunny or dry enough to take it out at present so ducking that one for the time being. :facepalm:
There is as you say a difference between good wear and tear and bad wear and tear. But as another way of looking at the perspective is if you never had anything new all you will see is used, where as if you have had something from new you maybe can appreciate its history as every mark will hold a memory for you.
If you take a bike and strip it down repaint it, repolish it's components or replace them you take hold of the ownership of that bike by giving it a new lease of life to start a new chapter.
If you take a bike and give it a sympathetic oilly rag restoration you become a custodian in its journey until you pass it on or it ultimately expires.
Any item of age will have history and signs of use, it is how it wears that history and use in appearance that matters. People can and do appreciate nostalgia and originality, signs of use etc they also appreciate looking like new but the irreconcilable opinion is one mans patina is another mans rust and dust.
I have no doubt that this is an argument that can not be won by either camp as each has its own merits. Me I'll just say "that looks nice with a bit of age to it" or "that looks nice freshened up" I just won't mention PATINA a word dug out of the dictionary originally used to describe the discolouration of fossils and artefacts now used to describe anything with a bit of use. :roll:
There is as you say a difference between good wear and tear and bad wear and tear. But as another way of looking at the perspective is if you never had anything new all you will see is used, where as if you have had something from new you maybe can appreciate its history as every mark will hold a memory for you.
If you take a bike and strip it down repaint it, repolish it's components or replace them you take hold of the ownership of that bike by giving it a new lease of life to start a new chapter.
If you take a bike and give it a sympathetic oilly rag restoration you become a custodian in its journey until you pass it on or it ultimately expires.
Any item of age will have history and signs of use, it is how it wears that history and use in appearance that matters. People can and do appreciate nostalgia and originality, signs of use etc they also appreciate looking like new but the irreconcilable opinion is one mans patina is another mans rust and dust.
I have no doubt that this is an argument that can not be won by either camp as each has its own merits. Me I'll just say "that looks nice with a bit of age to it" or "that looks nice freshened up" I just won't mention PATINA a word dug out of the dictionary originally used to describe the discolouration of fossils and artefacts now used to describe anything with a bit of use. :roll:
- Feedback
- View
Careworn.
That I like.
That I like.
Similar threads
