Difference between Restoration / Repro. / Replica ?

In my view, something that starts off with a data plate and some original structure, or fittings, but ultimately is rebuilt incorporating only a small percentage of “original” parts (that can be linked with the data plate), is, no more a rebuild than something that starts off as a new build, but aquires an “identity” at a later stage.

For me the term reproduction has been degraded by cheap furniture that has nothing to do with the original piece, other than it bears a passing resemblance ;the quality of wood, and the types of joints utilised are a far cry from the original; also the abbreviation of reproduction to “repro”, seems an intentional slur on which it describes, you don’t hear original abbreviated to “orig” or genuine to “gen”.

I find this an interesting topic, and one which will eventually end up with unversal definitions being settled upon to differentiate provenance of the various aircraft being marketed at very great values.

JDK,

The definition of a ‘replica’ by the RAFMus and NASM seem at some odds with each other.

Mark

“The museum defines reproduction as an exact or nearly exact example of an original.

A replica is merely a look alike of different construction to the original.”

“Replica: A reproduction built by the builder of the original artefact in part or in total.” Another USAFM definition. Interestingly he gives the example of the Gee Bee Super Sportster build by the New England Air Museum with the technical supervision of the Grandville Bros Chief Engineer Pete Miller. If it’s got original bits, he says ‘Replica with some Original Parts’.

“Reproduction: A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction of an aircraft made with similar materials, and having substantially the same type engine and operating systems.”

As JDK states in addition to the confusion over the definition for “replica” the museum definitions often dont directly translate into the warbird environment and use of words like “restoration” and “original”.

I think the confusion between the RAFM and NASM definitions arise from the fact that the “Art world” of museums really dont have “replicas” in paintings, sculpture or antiquities, they have “reproductions” (when they are acknowledged as copies). where-as the world replica appears to have arisen from the “industrial world” to describe duplication, copy etc.

The 1970’s use of the word “replica” by the “aviation world” to describe look-a-like WW1 aircraft constructed with steel tube instead of wood, and small radials instead of rotaries has created further confusion or a new definition.

“re-production” would seem to be the more appropriate word to apply to a new build ME262, Yaks or Oscar largely built to the original plans from the “same” but entirely new materials. effectively the same as if reproduced by the original manufacturer, and so I would lean towards the RAFM definitions, obviously these airframes do not claim the identity of an original aircraft.

“re-construction” may well be a term to apply to individual “name plates” that have a new aeroplane built around them from a mixture reproduction parts, restored parts from various sources and NOS parts (New/Old Stock), or even a wooden aircraft having much of its wooden parts replaced, but retaining its metal parts. (Glynn Powells Mosquitos?)

“restoration” would then be reserved to the NASM definition of an original aircraft retaining 50% or more of its original structure.

with “replica” remaining to describe “look-a-likes” of different materials/construction methods.

Preservation and Conservation would seem to be definitions purely reserved for the processes involved when an item is taken out of every day use and into a museum like outcome.

As I said an interesting topic to discuss.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Mr Tweed,

Certainly it does not earn a monetry return but as was said some time ago , it earns it’s keep by way of the “F” word.

Fun

and as such I agree with you it is not in preservation which implies a static state.

Too many things are valued by monetry return and not human capital.

Roy

Hi Stuart…. “unfinished project?” – just don’t sell it! 😀

The only draw back to the plan, is that you have to finish it, or else it’s then an “unfinished project” when advertised for sale!

Call it anything you like…

As long as it looks like a Spit when it,s finished and we can go Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh,Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh at it…:cool: Knowing my skills at the moment it is called a aluminium reprowrecktion.Hey we are having fun!!!!;) And that,s the important thing….

“Hornet Project”….. work’s for me too!

Sadly no data plates seem to exist though, so this will always be a new-build incorporating some original components.

Always a bit sensitive on what to class our Spit project..Will have to change our webpage header I know.Is reproduction the one to go with?Yes we are also making a mess as well:rolleyes: …:o

You would be safe with ‘reploduction’, ‘reproration’ or ‘restoplica’. 😉

Mark

I like yer way of thinkin cobber….

Done!!!Will let our webguy know….:D Thanks Stuart…A virtual ale for you….:eek:

Always a bit sensitive on what to class our Spit project..Will have to change our webpage header I know.Is reproduction the one to go with?Yes we are also making a mess as well:rolleyes: …:o

How about calling it a “spitfire project”, and then after it’s finished, wait and see what everone else says about it;…. works for me.

Think I got it right….

Always a bit sensitive on what to class our Spit project..Will have to change our webpage header I know.Is reproduction the one to go with?Yes we are also making a mess as well:rolleyes: …:o

The definition of a ‘replica’ by the RAFMus and NASM seem at some odds with each other. 🙂

Well spotted. 😉 If they can’t agree…

As I said before, it seems there aren’t fixed terms in aviation preservation. To confuse matters further, many of us (myself included) use ‘replica’ as a catch-all for a non-original machines.

If you were selling something as a replica or reproduction, and you used parts or items that weren’t new (i.e original), surely you would fall foul of the trade descriptions act, as these parts aren’t replicated or reproduced; if you were selling it on ebay you would have to list it as “used”.

See:

Some Museum Definitions

The Thread’s quite interesting as well.

JDK,

The definition of a ‘replica’ by the RAFMus and NASM seem at some odds with each other. 🙂

Mark

What would you class it as?

An aircraft?

The definitions quoted were from two museum sources – not my opinion. 😉 However Mikesh would have it as an ‘original’ (see original link) and I’d agree.

There does not seem to be a standard agreed set of terms in aviation (such as ‘veteran’ and ‘vintage’ in cars) although there’s great consistency in the museum terminology generally – as here.

The bit usually missed, and being missed here again, is the change between ‘service’ and ‘preservation’. People often confuse ‘new’ with ‘original’; as soon as it’s left the factory, it’s not new, but it remains original, however ratty or repaired in service it gets. Trigger’s broom (a modern version of the grandfather’s axe cliché) remains ‘original’ while he uses it for sweeping, however many parts are amusingly changed for use. As soon as the Peckham Historical Museum puts the broom on show, it’s in preservation, and any further changes, either by the Peckham Museum Curator, or Trigger, trying to make it look better, post use, detract from its originality. Simple.

However, Scion’s Rapide / Dominie question is a good one. It was built for military use, and entered a second revenue earning life as a civil airliner. While I’m sure it’s still doing a grand job, I’d be surprised to hear it earns it’s keep, so is now in preservation. However, as what it’s doing hasn’t changed, so it would generally be regarded as an original machine – the paperwork showing what was replaced, when. That paperwork, incidentally, is what historians (particularly art historians) understand to be ‘provenance’ a term used for slightly different purposes here on occasions.

Paul M’s point regarding sale is a good one – however that’s a reflection of cash value, not historical value; a completely different entity, and again, often muddled or confused for various reasons.

Just a thought or two.

I guess ours is a restoration of a replica which was rebuilt out of new/old stock parts! 😀

“Whats the definition / difference between a Newbuild / Rebuild / Restoration / Reproduction / Replica?”

Depends on who is selling and who is buying!

😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

Just out of curiosity, how many people have ever replaced the head of an axe? I put a handle on one 20 years ago and used it every day for 10 years, now I don’t know where it is!

“What would you class it as?” – Triggers Broom!

I will explain:

In the 80’s there was a UK TV comedy called: Only Fools and Horses. (appologies if it was exported worldwide), but there was a street sweeper in the program called Trigger. One day he proudly proclaimed that he still used his original broom after 30 years on the job. Thing is, that he had replaced the head 5 times, and the handle 6 times. 😀

I would still say that this was an original working aircraft with continual provenance!