Jerry,
I agree with everything you have said, with the exception of the statement that the average Colnago or Guercotti had the same level of workmanship as Paramounts. That has not been my observation, though I think mid to late '70s Colnagos displayed more variation in finish quality than earlier or later models. I guess people have to look at both and come to their own conclusions. I have seen less than steller workmanship on Cinellis, though the Colnagos I saw in the early '70s were consistently of higher finish quality than Paramounts I looked at. For one thing, most '70s Paramounts I have seen look like extensive cleanup was done to the stay and fork ends with air-powered belt sanders. Not the clean brazing one typically finds on some other high-end frames of the era.
In the mid-'70s, there were a number of budding framebuilders in the Albany, NY area and all but one that I knew of consistently put out impeccable work. My point is that there was a quality difference between the Paramounts and similar bikes and the Masis, Confentes and custom builder bikes (not that these all belong in the same category, either). The fact that many people saw the Paramount as the top of the cycling world irked some afficianadoes and resulted in a backlash distaste of the Paramount that was, I believe, equally misplaced. I say this, because I experienced it back in the '70s. I sensed a little of this in Lou Deeter's email to me that precipitated this thread, where he said that the P13 on eBay had nice parts, but it would be a shame to part it out. My read was that he was saying "yippee-skippy, another well-preserved Paramount--yawn." Hardly what one would expect if a similar Confente were to surface.
BTW, the one builder I knew who didn't worry about finish said that he didn't think it had anything to do with the way the bike rode. I loved that guy dearly, and I have to admit that he was right. I think that's how a Cinelli can have both flaws and mojo.
I love Paramounts but, from what I know, I don't think that the many of the people who made them rode them, or had even been avid riders at any time in their lives. One doesn't need to be a rider to be able to braze a joint or finish a lug, and being a rider doesn't necessarily result in a passion for the product, but to me, there is a spirit in my Marinoni that just isn't there in my Paramount, as much as I like them both. And, yes, Guiseppe left a few file marks in that frame as well. Move to a Sachs, or a Baylis, even it their early renditions, and I acknowledge you have climbed up a shelf.
--Steve Barner, Bolton, Vermont
<classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [CR] Paramount on Ebay
> Many Italian bikes, including Cinelli, showed similar evidence of lug
> filing. Colnago in the 70's was very inconsistent, and it seems they
> subcontracted to a lot of shops, some of which weren't so great. I'd put
73
> Paramounts up against any Italian bike of the era made in large enough
> quality to become widely known in the US. Of course there were Italian
> craftsmen who spent many hours producing impeccably finished frames, but
> these guys were mostly unknown outside Italy, as they never made enough
> frames to support an export business. There were also young American
> framebuilders beginning to build exquisite frames, but in 1973, I only
> recall Albert Eisentraut having yet become widely known.
>
> I personally consider the Italian reputation for superior workmanship
mostly
> mystique. Italian frames did have style and visual appeal and often set
new
> design trends, but I don't think they were particularly any better in
> workmanshio than French or British frames in the same price range. One
> thing that bolstered the Italian mystique was that, except for Atala, the
> Italians mostly sent their higher end models to the US. Most of the
cheap
> bikes which flooded into the US were low end Raleighs or Peugeots or
> products of numerous other French companies. It also seems that several of
> the Italian builders did not make cheap models and therefore avoided
having
> these undermine the public perception of their overall quality. But I
don't
> think the average Colnago or Cinelli or Guercotti one bought in the US was
> any better finished than a Raleigh Pro or Schwinn Paramount.
>
> Paramounts are remarkable because for about three decades beginning with
the
> severe decline in interest in serious cycling in the US after WWII, the
> Paramount was the only top quality road bike produced in the US in any
large
> numbers. In fact, with the exception of a few brief projects like the
Ross
> Signature, no other top quality lugged steel frame ever was made in the US
> in large numbers after WWII, although we now have all sorts of European
> teams riding US-made (or US designed, Asian made) TIGed aluminum or
Titanium
> frames. I don't think it was until about 1990 that Schwinn seriously
> degraded the Paramount image by slapping the Paramount name on mid-range
> Asian made bikes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Barner" <steve@sburl.com>
> To: "Todd Kuzma" <tullio@theramp.net>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR] Paramount on Ebay
>
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I was speaking specifically of Paramounts in the vintage of the '73 on
> eBay.
> > Quality varied, depending on the year of manufacture or luck of the
draw.
> > As I stated, Paramounts compared well when held up next to the other
> > mass-production manufacturers' top line models. My observation is that
> the
> > '70s Paramounts were not in the same category as the Masis, Colnagos,
and
> > even the Cinellis of the period. And they couldn't be considered even
> > remotely as being in the same class as the budding American frame
builders
> > of the era. They were well-built, wonderful bikes, but you just have to
> > look closely at them to see the difference in workmanship. My point is
> that
> > their popularity with the masses made them an object of disdain with
some
> > connoisseurs.
> >
> > If anyone wants close-up photos of examples of less-than-excellent
> > workmanship on '70s Paramounts, I will be happy to suffice. It's all
> > cosmetic stuff that doesn't detract from the great ride of a
silver-brazed
> > 531, classic geometry frame.
> >
> > Steve Barner, still loving Paramounts in Bolton, Vermont
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Todd Kuzma" <tullio@theramp.net>
> > To: "Stephen Barner" <steve@sburl.com>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 10:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CR] Paramount on Ebay
> >
> >
> > > on 4/5/03 4:46 PM, Stephen Barner at steve@sburl.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is probably justified by the fact that Paramounts had
> > > > a very good reputation with the uninformed, while many bikes, while
> > superior
> > > > in workmanship, were largely underappreciated. Those chrome Nervex
> > curlies
> > > > loist their appeal when the more sophisticated eye spotted the
> filemarks
> > and
> > > > sloppy bike boom workmanship that too often lay underneath. . .
> > >
> > > > They compare very well against similar off-shore companies, such as
> > Raleigh,
> > > > Peugeot and Atala. In 1973, the bloom was still pretty shiny on the
> > > > Paramount rose, so, yes, it would be a shame to part it out, and I
bet
> > it's
> > > > still a really sweet ride.
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > This is quite an indictment of the Paramount name. Remeber that the
> > > Paramount history is quite a long one (starting in 1937) and includes
> many
> > > famous builders. For example, Albert Eisentraut apprenticed under
Oscar
> > > Wastyn.
> > >
> > > Personally, I would place the quality of the Paramounts that I have
been
> > > familiar with above most Raleighs, Peugots, and Atalas, but I'd like
to
> > hear
> > > comments from others on this matter.
> > >
> > > Todd Kuzma
> > > Heron Bicycles
> > > LaSalle, IL
> > > http://www.heronbicycles.com/