11 ms·

> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship], even if it looks exactly like what once stood. “Do we clean it up and make it all look unifi

> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship], even if it looks exactly like what once stood. “Do we clean it up and make it all look unified, or do we try to let the memory remain?” I am very unhappy that Notre Dame burnt. Having said that, I don't see it as "oh no, history has been destroyed" but rather as "this is the history of the Cathedral". If it's still standing (and it seems like it will be), people will talk about this fire for hundreds of years, the same way we talk today about how it survived the French revolution. Douglas Adams has a great quote on how a building its more than its materials, which you can read in [1]. If we use 3D scans and modern technology to reconstruct the Cathedral to the way it was, I wouldn't see it as "Disneyland" (as the article puts it) but rather as an example of how far we have come and what we can do when we put our minds to it, and how the story of our civilization is written not by design, but rather by accident. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/742883-i-remembered-once-in-japan-having-been-to-see-the https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/742883-i-remembered-once-in...

gabaix 7y ago
Thank you for the perspective. As someone who grew up in France I find solace in witnessing a new chapter.
martpie 7y ago
> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship] I will add one quick thing: if that's true the initial wall is lost (obviously), old craftmanship is not lost. There is an organisation in France called "Les Compagnons du Devoir" [1] that does exactly this: (re)build things the way we built them centuries ago. This organization has stonecutters and carpenters that could help a lot redo what was destroyed last night, with the know-how of the past. So yes indeed, nothing is "lost", this is just another part of the cathedral's history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I hope that they would not just try to re-create the past. That is impossible. I'd like to see the rebuild incorporate the absolute best of what we know from the past and modern techniques.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    “Modern techniques” are specifically calibrated and engineered not to last on the timescale of Notre Dame due to the costs involved. Modern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years. “Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY. The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture). Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      Modern techniques certainly can be used to build crap, but that is hardly a requirement. I bet they built plenty of crap a thousand years ago, too. I am very confident that we can build structures today that are better than anything ever built, when we choose to. Thing is, for most utility structures there is no particular benefit to building for that kind of longevity.
    - pyrale 7y ago
      A good share of notable cathedrals have burned in recent history, and some of them have been rebuilt using modern techniques (e.g. Chartres, one of the most notable french cathedrals now has a metallic structure to bear its roof). These new techniques are both elegant and a better fit, as they protect the building from a (likely) fire in the future. Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
    - netsharc 7y ago
      > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.
MarcScott 7y ago
I like this outlook very much. I remember a visit to Coventry Cathedral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Cathedral) when I was at school, and the destruction of the old building had just become part of the history of the site. There had been no attempt to rebuild the old cathedral, just an acceptance that a tragedy had occurred and that there were lessons to be learned.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > there were lessons to be learned. Egad, I hope one of them was that modern architects shouldn't be allowed near a building project. To see the ruins of that beautiful old cathedral next to that atrocity against beauty is almost physically painful.
freehunter 7y ago
Great take. Also good to remember that a Temple of Jupiter once stood where Notre Dame is. After that was destroyed, a basillica stood there, and then a Romanesque cathedral. That last one, which was nearly 700 years old, was torn down to build the Gothic style Notre Dame. The people who built Notre Dame tore down what to them would have been ancient history. Those other buildings were hundreds of years old by the time Notre Dame was built. 800 years ago, Notre Dame was the change that destroyed a 700 year old historical building. And the new construction was built in a super-modern style. They didn't try to make it look like the old building they tore down, they built it with the most modern techniques in a super trendy style. Much like death and rebirth are cornerstones of the Christian religion that Notre Dame represents, death and rebirth are fundamental to Notre Dame itself.
- IIAOPSW 7y ago
  Notre Dame Morte. Viva le Notre Dame.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    > Notre Dame est morte. Vive Notre Dame. FTFY
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  While I totally agree with your sentiment, I'm not sure how I'd feel about tearing the whole thing down and building something brand new in its place. Interesting to ponder why that is.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    Maybe because you suspect that this brand new something wouldn't necessarily be built to travel through centuries.
    - basch 7y ago
      Thats sort of how I feel about it being done in 5 years. Take your time, make it a big deal, its ok if you spend a lifetime on it. People who visit will get to say they saw it being built, while it was under construction. When it is finally unveiled at the end the story can be "this was xxxx years in the works."
avip 7y ago
The ship of Theseus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
donarb 7y ago
The Reims cathedral suffered very heavy damage during WW1 and was rebuilt in about 20 years. Looking at it today, you'd hardly know the extent of the damage.
MisterTea 7y ago
> "this is the history of the Cathedral" Exactly! Time and physics doesn't care about history. Wood will rot, metal will corrode, stone will weather. Hell, the earth itself is undergoing continuous reshaping every single day. This rebuilding is just another chapter in the cathedrals history. Besides, think of how prestigious it sounds to say you played a role in the reconstruction an 850 year old national landmark. I know what jobsite I'd like to work on if I were a master carpenter.
gomi7321 7y ago
I totally agree with your point that the Notre Dame fire is unfortunate, but that we have to accept it as the Cathedral's history. However, I think that from an architectural and art historical perspective, we can do more than just reconstruct the Cathedral exactly the way it was. Art and architecture always change with their cultural and historical context, and I think it's one of human kinds biggest strengths to create something new out of old or destroyed artwork. A great example is the Cologne Cathedral Window, which the German contemporary painter Gerhard Richter designed in 2007, long after the window had been destroyed in World War II: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/many-colored-glass-peter-schjeldahl https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/many-colored-g...
- kibwen 7y ago
  Indeed. Rather than try to cling to historical accuracy at all cost, we can simultaneously honor and remember the past while putting our own distinct mark on things. After all, one day we'll all be history too, and it would be a shame to deprive students of the past of material. :) [Greetings to the early-internet archaeologists of the 29th century, btw.]
  - makapuf 7y ago
    Even more so that notre dame has been heavily restored by architect viollet-leduc in the middle of the XIXth century. Look at this photography from 1840: the highest peak that has collapsed was not there. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Paris#/media/Fichier%3ANotre_Dame_de_Paris_en_1840.jpg https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Par...
- WalterBright 7y ago
  My father was part of the B-17 force sent to destroy the railway station next to the Koelner Dom. They were also ordered to miss the Dom if they could. He was rather proud that they destroyed the station and missed the Dom.
- basch 7y ago
  The fact that 400 people managed to put out the fire is part of the history too. If this happened 100 years ago, would it still be able to stand?
mbostleman 7y ago
> this is the history of the Cathedral > Exactly. There aren't many old structures that don't have a history littered with damage or complete destruction and rebuilding. Natural disasters, invaders, accidents. I like to think that those events are becoming less frequent with increasingly better tech and a more civilized world. This one was an anomaly I think. It will be interesting to learn the cause(s) and see what practices might be put in place to avoid them in the future.
- titanix2 7y ago
  > what practices might be put in place to avoid them in the futur Strict immigration policy?
hyperbovine 7y ago
The Basilica of St. Paul's in Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside_the_Walls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside...) has a very similar story. It's even older than Notre Dame (4th century) and was burned nearly to the ground in 1823 by, wait for it, an accident involving a worker repairing the roof. The church was rebuilt using contemporary methods and today it's regarded as a treasure. I foresee a similar thing happening here. A 1000-year old roof is an architectural treasure, but it's also a 1000-year old roof, with all its attendant challenges. The church will (someday) be rebuilt in a grand old classical style, but with a soupçon of modernity added as well. I think will be in some sense better off as a result.
- hrktb 7y ago
  An alternative approach is to rebuild a replica while keeping the original sealed (non visitable) It has been done for prehistoric caves for instance. For a whole building it's more tricky, but it could be fine to have it on a remote part of the city, and let people experience it as it was before. That would also allow to do representation or over more risky uses that could damage the historical monument but would be fine in a replica.
  - pyrale 7y ago
    What is the point of preserving it if no one can visit it ?
    - hrktb 7y ago
      The same applies to painting replicas, and I think most people don’t mind if the original is kept for preservation and near perfect replicas are exposed/sold for viewing purpose in comfortable conditions.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    You can keep it 'non visitable' but it will need a roof of sorts. The quickest way to get rid of any building is to open it up to the weather.
lgeorget 7y ago
This is very true and I thank you for this. I think what hurts really is the fact that a cathedral that took 200 years to be built, and had been standing there for 800 years can burn down in a single night. It makes one wonder about the vanity of many of the humanity's achievements and it's a harsh reminder that everything eventually comes to an end.
ordu 7y ago
I cannot agree more. I'm also unhappy about a fire, but rebuilding, fixing an old thing to be like a new one, it is a part of a history of the thing. Such a stories enrich history. In a child age I weaved a spider from wire. It was a state of the art toy, I used techniques of making wire toys I learnt from others and extended them futher with my own inventions. And I remember how I played with that "robotic spider with computer mind" by chopping it with a knife and then fixing damage done. (It was like spider got a serious fight and was damaged) Every iteration was a fun and in a very short time my spider become a battered and somehow much more valuable for me. It was so much fun that I almost chopped off my own finger accidently. I mean, this is somehow an inherent property of a human perception of things: past events connected with a thing cast a shade on that thing and with a time passing the thing becomes a container of the memory for all that events, and for all the times when events took their place. It reminds me the project of rebuiling Tally Ho[1]. You can change all the wood the boat was made of, but it would be the same boat. Moreover, the ongoing project of rebuilding Tally Ho enriches history of Tally Ho beyond imaginable, maybe all the previous 100+ years history of Tally Ho is being outshined by the current events in her life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB00JHoTw1TeX82Qw8hoFLRJI89Us_jMw https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB00JHoTw1TeX82Qw8hoF...
netsharc 7y ago
It's basically the Ship of Theseus thought experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
deathwarmedover 7y ago
Terry Pratchett riffed on a very similar theme in The Fifth Elephant about a 900-year-old axe: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/217710-this-milord-is-my-family-s-axe-we-have-owned-it https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/217710-this-milord-is-my-fa...
WalterBright 7y ago
Reminds me of an article I read about attempts to restore a Ferrari that had crashed and burned. It had been totally destroyed, the only thing salvageable was the serial number plate. The debate was, of course, whether this project was a restoration or a replication. I don't think there's a difference. A few years ago I visited a hangar in Everett where some enthusiasts had borrowed an Me262 from a museum in order to take it apart and produce mechanical drawings of everything. Then they built flying replicas from the ground up and sold them. Some changes were made for safety and practicality reasons. So were they real Me262s or not? I'd say they were real. I wished I could have bought one.
- int_19h 7y ago
  Well, it depends on your definition of "real"... The market certainly distinguishes replicas from originals, even in situations such as you describe. For example, modern replicas of 19th century firearms can be 10x cheaper than the originals, even if they are perfect reproductions down to materials used. So, whatever the reason, people do care on average.
kpU8efre7r 7y ago
Agreed. It's just a thing. It's still standing and will be reconstructed. Does it really matter if the wood is original? No history was "destroyed" in any sense.
codesushi42 7y ago
Maybe history cannot be undone, if your definition of history is continuous and irreversible like time. But information can be destroyed permanently. And that is what was lost.
Aeolun 7y ago
I think Japan has some interesting ideas about this. Many of their most famous temples have been completely destroyed (either by being burnt down, struck by lightning, or leveled by earthquakes) at least once in their lifetime, but they always get rebuilt, and are no less the same temple At least, this is implied by the signs saying 600 year old temple, when in fact the current building was built 150 years ago.

gabaix 7y ago

Thank you for the perspective. As someone who grew up in France I find solace in witnessing a new chapter.

martpie 7y ago

> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship] I will add one quick thing: if that's true the initial wall is lost (obviously), old craftmanship is not lost. There is an organisation in France called "Les Compagnons du Devoir" [1] that does exactly this: (re)build things the way we built them centuries ago. This organization has stonecutters and carpenters that could help a lot redo what was destroyed last night, with the know-how of the past. So yes indeed, nothing is "lost", this is just another part of the cathedral's history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir

rootusrootus 7y ago
I hope that they would not just try to re-create the past. That is impossible. I'd like to see the rebuild incorporate the absolute best of what we know from the past and modern techniques.
- zaroth 7y ago
  “Modern techniques” are specifically calibrated and engineered not to last on the timescale of Notre Dame due to the costs involved. Modern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years. “Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY. The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture). Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Modern techniques certainly can be used to build crap, but that is hardly a requirement. I bet they built plenty of crap a thousand years ago, too. I am very confident that we can build structures today that are better than anything ever built, when we choose to. Thing is, for most utility structures there is no particular benefit to building for that kind of longevity.
  - pyrale 7y ago
    A good share of notable cathedrals have burned in recent history, and some of them have been rebuilt using modern techniques (e.g. Chartres, one of the most notable french cathedrals now has a metallic structure to bear its roof). These new techniques are both elegant and a better fit, as they protect the building from a (likely) fire in the future. Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.

MarcScott 7y ago

I like this outlook very much. I remember a visit to Coventry Cathedral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Cathedral) when I was at school, and the destruction of the old building had just become part of the history of the site. There had been no attempt to rebuild the old cathedral, just an acceptance that a tragedy had occurred and that there were lessons to be learned.

zeveb 7y ago
> there were lessons to be learned. Egad, I hope one of them was that modern architects shouldn't be allowed near a building project. To see the ruins of that beautiful old cathedral next to that atrocity against beauty is almost physically painful.

freehunter 7y ago

Great take. Also good to remember that a Temple of Jupiter once stood where Notre Dame is. After that was destroyed, a basillica stood there, and then a Romanesque cathedral. That last one, which was nearly 700 years old, was torn down to build the Gothic style Notre Dame. The people who built Notre Dame tore down what to them would have been ancient history. Those other buildings were hundreds of years old by the time Notre Dame was built. 800 years ago, Notre Dame was the change that destroyed a 700 year old historical building. And the new construction was built in a super-modern style. They didn't try to make it look like the old building they tore down, they built it with the most modern techniques in a super trendy style. Much like death and rebirth are cornerstones of the Christian religion that Notre Dame represents, death and rebirth are fundamental to Notre Dame itself.

IIAOPSW 7y ago
Notre Dame Morte. Viva le Notre Dame.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > Notre Dame est morte. Vive Notre Dame. FTFY
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
While I totally agree with your sentiment, I'm not sure how I'd feel about tearing the whole thing down and building something brand new in its place. Interesting to ponder why that is.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Maybe because you suspect that this brand new something wouldn't necessarily be built to travel through centuries.
  - basch 7y ago
    Thats sort of how I feel about it being done in 5 years. Take your time, make it a big deal, its ok if you spend a lifetime on it. People who visit will get to say they saw it being built, while it was under construction. When it is finally unveiled at the end the story can be "this was xxxx years in the works."

avip 7y ago

The ship of Theseus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

donarb 7y ago

The Reims cathedral suffered very heavy damage during WW1 and was rebuilt in about 20 years. Looking at it today, you'd hardly know the extent of the damage.

MisterTea 7y ago

> "this is the history of the Cathedral" Exactly! Time and physics doesn't care about history. Wood will rot, metal will corrode, stone will weather. Hell, the earth itself is undergoing continuous reshaping every single day. This rebuilding is just another chapter in the cathedrals history. Besides, think of how prestigious it sounds to say you played a role in the reconstruction an 850 year old national landmark. I know what jobsite I'd like to work on if I were a master carpenter.

gomi7321 7y ago

I totally agree with your point that the Notre Dame fire is unfortunate, but that we have to accept it as the Cathedral's history. However, I think that from an architectural and art historical perspective, we can do more than just reconstruct the Cathedral exactly the way it was. Art and architecture always change with their cultural and historical context, and I think it's one of human kinds biggest strengths to create something new out of old or destroyed artwork. A great example is the Cologne Cathedral Window, which the German contemporary painter Gerhard Richter designed in 2007, long after the window had been destroyed in World War II: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/many-colored-glass-peter-schjeldahl https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/05/12/many-colored-g...

kibwen 7y ago
Indeed. Rather than try to cling to historical accuracy at all cost, we can simultaneously honor and remember the past while putting our own distinct mark on things. After all, one day we'll all be history too, and it would be a shame to deprive students of the past of material. :) [Greetings to the early-internet archaeologists of the 29th century, btw.]
- makapuf 7y ago
  Even more so that notre dame has been heavily restored by architect viollet-leduc in the middle of the XIXth century. Look at this photography from 1840: the highest peak that has collapsed was not there. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Paris#/media/Fichier%3ANotre_Dame_de_Paris_en_1840.jpg https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathédrale_Notre-Dame_de_Par...
WalterBright 7y ago
My father was part of the B-17 force sent to destroy the railway station next to the Koelner Dom. They were also ordered to miss the Dom if they could. He was rather proud that they destroyed the station and missed the Dom.
basch 7y ago
The fact that 400 people managed to put out the fire is part of the history too. If this happened 100 years ago, would it still be able to stand?

mbostleman 7y ago

> this is the history of the Cathedral > Exactly. There aren't many old structures that don't have a history littered with damage or complete destruction and rebuilding. Natural disasters, invaders, accidents. I like to think that those events are becoming less frequent with increasingly better tech and a more civilized world. This one was an anomaly I think. It will be interesting to learn the cause(s) and see what practices might be put in place to avoid them in the future.

titanix2 7y ago
> what practices might be put in place to avoid them in the futur Strict immigration policy?

hyperbovine 7y ago

The Basilica of St. Paul's in Rome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside_the_Walls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside...) has a very similar story. It's even older than Notre Dame (4th century) and was burned nearly to the ground in 1823 by, wait for it, an accident involving a worker repairing the roof. The church was rebuilt using contemporary methods and today it's regarded as a treasure. I foresee a similar thing happening here. A 1000-year old roof is an architectural treasure, but it's also a 1000-year old roof, with all its attendant challenges. The church will (someday) be rebuilt in a grand old classical style, but with a soupçon of modernity added as well. I think will be in some sense better off as a result.

hrktb 7y ago
An alternative approach is to rebuild a replica while keeping the original sealed (non visitable) It has been done for prehistoric caves for instance. For a whole building it's more tricky, but it could be fine to have it on a remote part of the city, and let people experience it as it was before. That would also allow to do representation or over more risky uses that could damage the historical monument but would be fine in a replica.
- pyrale 7y ago
  What is the point of preserving it if no one can visit it ?
  - hrktb 7y ago
    The same applies to painting replicas, and I think most people don’t mind if the original is kept for preservation and near perfect replicas are exposed/sold for viewing purpose in comfortable conditions.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  You can keep it 'non visitable' but it will need a roof of sorts. The quickest way to get rid of any building is to open it up to the weather.

lgeorget 7y ago

This is very true and I thank you for this. I think what hurts really is the fact that a cathedral that took 200 years to be built, and had been standing there for 800 years can burn down in a single night. It makes one wonder about the vanity of many of the humanity's achievements and it's a harsh reminder that everything eventually comes to an end.

ordu 7y ago

I cannot agree more. I'm also unhappy about a fire, but rebuilding, fixing an old thing to be like a new one, it is a part of a history of the thing. Such a stories enrich history. In a child age I weaved a spider from wire. It was a state of the art toy, I used techniques of making wire toys I learnt from others and extended them futher with my own inventions. And I remember how I played with that "robotic spider with computer mind" by chopping it with a knife and then fixing damage done. (It was like spider got a serious fight and was damaged) Every iteration was a fun and in a very short time my spider become a battered and somehow much more valuable for me. It was so much fun that I almost chopped off my own finger accidently. I mean, this is somehow an inherent property of a human perception of things: past events connected with a thing cast a shade on that thing and with a time passing the thing becomes a container of the memory for all that events, and for all the times when events took their place. It reminds me the project of rebuiling Tally Ho[1]. You can change all the wood the boat was made of, but it would be the same boat. Moreover, the ongoing project of rebuilding Tally Ho enriches history of Tally Ho beyond imaginable, maybe all the previous 100+ years history of Tally Ho is being outshined by the current events in her life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB00JHoTw1TeX82Qw8hoFLRJI89Us_jMw https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB00JHoTw1TeX82Qw8hoF...

netsharc 7y ago

It's basically the Ship of Theseus thought experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

deathwarmedover 7y ago

Terry Pratchett riffed on a very similar theme in The Fifth Elephant about a 900-year-old axe: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/217710-this-milord-is-my-family-s-axe-we-have-owned-it https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/217710-this-milord-is-my-fa...

WalterBright 7y ago

Reminds me of an article I read about attempts to restore a Ferrari that had crashed and burned. It had been totally destroyed, the only thing salvageable was the serial number plate. The debate was, of course, whether this project was a restoration or a replication. I don't think there's a difference. A few years ago I visited a hangar in Everett where some enthusiasts had borrowed an Me262 from a museum in order to take it apart and produce mechanical drawings of everything. Then they built flying replicas from the ground up and sold them. Some changes were made for safety and practicality reasons. So were they real Me262s or not? I'd say they were real. I wished I could have bought one.

int_19h 7y ago
Well, it depends on your definition of "real"... The market certainly distinguishes replicas from originals, even in situations such as you describe. For example, modern replicas of 19th century firearms can be 10x cheaper than the originals, even if they are perfect reproductions down to materials used. So, whatever the reason, people do care on average.

kpU8efre7r 7y ago

Agreed. It's just a thing. It's still standing and will be reconstructed. Does it really matter if the wood is original? No history was "destroyed" in any sense.

codesushi42 7y ago

Maybe history cannot be undone, if your definition of history is continuous and irreversible like time. But information can be destroyed permanently. And that is what was lost.

Aeolun 7y ago

I think Japan has some interesting ideas about this. Many of their most famous temples have been completely destroyed (either by being burnt down, struck by lightning, or leveled by earthquakes) at least once in their lifetime, but they always get rebuilt, and are no less the same temple At least, this is implied by the signs saying 600 year old temple, when in fact the current building was built 150 years ago.