Dear Group, I am enjoying the discussion concerning seventies-era bikes and the "incomprehensible" REALLY old bikes from the 1890's through the teens, and into the thirties, forties, fifties, etc. I too have bicycles that range from an 1889 hard-tire safety through the better examples of the 1970's bike boom era. I see no reason why one era should be in competition with the other. Each bike deserves a place in cycling history. I do think certain members of the CR list might expand their field of vision a bit (This works both ways, of course: the Wheelmen organization in America insists that bicycles included in their events be pre-1917, and I for one would like to see them accept ANY old bicycle, including the stunning lightweights of the thirties through the sixties, as does the Vetreran Cycle Club of England. I might add that I suspect the reason why the Wheelmen hold fast to the pre-1917 rule is that they do not want to open their ranks to a flood of balloon-tire enthusiasts, thus losing the Victorian image they have so painstakingly cultivated). In the antiques world there is a general rule of thumb that roughly thrity years must pass for an item to become "obsolete," to be forgotten and relegated to the attic, basement, or even the junk pile, before it may be discovered again as a thing of beauty, a relic of the past worthy of our attention. One might object to the word "relic" in this context, since most of us on the list enjoy riding our old bikes...but if a young cyclist on his tig welded mountain bike calls my bicycle a relic, it doesn't bother me a bit. Labels are for jelly jars, as they say.
Warmly, Daniel Dahlquist
Galena, Illinois