You refer to the “Liturgical Reformation of Vatican II,” something I am quite unfamiliar with
I’m surprised you are unfamiliar with it, since Vatican II has a whole document about Sacred Liturgy, that states in its first paragraph that " the Council sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy" (SC 1), and then proceeds to give reasons and guidelines for that reform (or “restoration”, both are valid translations of the latin word “instauratio”). There you can also read statements like “The Council desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times” (SC 4).
The name of the document is Sacrosanctum Concilium, as you probably already know. And, as you most likely also know, all the liturgical books of the Roman Rite were reformed according to those guidelines in the subsequent years, and later revised in several occasions until today.
If your concern is to stress the fact that Vatican II never denied the value of the liturgical tradition that preceded the Council, and that tradition had to be taken into account for the reform, that is of course true, as you can see for example in the sentence quoted above.
However, I perceive in your remarks a tone of suspicion, as if you were assuming I am somehow attacking Faith or Tradition and you need to defend them against me. I don’t think I have said anything that justifies being treated like that. I tried to be conciliatory in my first response, but I see you persist in that attitude. Well, I won’t tolerate it again, because you have no right to do it. If you keep answering me in that aggressive mood, I won’t respond to your comments, and I will also flag your post and report to the moderators.
. Depending of how well they have been preserved, old vestments will be in better or worse condition (also obvious, sorry).