Cosmetic replicas

William Donzelli wrote: You know, one of the things I really like about this hobby is the detective work that's needed to separate production machines from prototypes, discover "one offs", figure out where a owner's made a change from the factory original etc. I think I'd get bored if there weren't those little discoveries to be made. Of course, a tiny logo/message hidden from view on the back side of a repro panel is probably sufficiently out of the way to retain the "detective work" aspect of researching a machine :-) In some cases museum practice seems a little odd, though. I remember discussing our ICL mainframe with others at Bletchley a little while ago - some of the cabinets are pretty scratched and rusted up. It seems that London Science Museum policy as part of restoration is not to repaint anything, and I still can't quite get my head around that. Personally I'd rather save an original paint flake or two (in case years down the line somebody needs to do analysis on the *original* paint), put in the restoration log-book what's been repainted, and then strip + repaint the cabinets so that they survive without further deterioration in order to prolong the life of the machine (long after it can no longer be maintained in running condition, it can still be a static exhibit). Of course it could be argued that the log book might go missing at some future time - but for a working restoration from "barn find" condition there are going to be all sorts of things that *have* to be replaced with items where original stock is no longer available, and so some form of log is obviously necessary. I suppose the upshot of this is that I'm with William on noting *somehow* what parts are non-original. But at the same time I admire those who would rather restore something to as faithful recreation of the original as possible, when the alternative is to leave the machine in a state where it's incomplete or where restoration policy would result in it deteriorating faster than necessary. cheers Jules