I find this discussion interesting because I worked as a bike mechanic in the mid-1970s at a Raleigh dealer and saw in person components mixed by the manufacturer (Brooks Pro/Competition seats, Campy NR/SR/GS components, wheel rims, etc). Late in the summer, Raleigh sometimes surprised us with frames/components sent from England that were mixed/matched because they ran low on parts for the end of that model year season.
Just-In-Time inventory methods were not used at that time by OEM bike manufacturers, so the bikes that shipped from England sometimes came with components not listed in the catalogue. Raleigh was not the best at forcasting demand for their bikes and component shortages sometimes resulted. I can recall the store manager at the time having to "horse trade" with other LBS to obtain a "correct" set of components to meet the byers expectation since Raleigh did not send the correct set..
Sometimes, what you see in a catalogue was not what you get from the factory OEM.
Regards, Steve Neago
Cincinnati, OH
> In a message dated 5/21/03 10:14:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> monkeylad@mac.com writes:
>
> << Well then Chuck let me ask this, what is more original and why; what's
> in the catalog, what's in the box that the dealer gets, or what the
> customer walks out with >>
>
> I'd say what the majority of the bikes actually came through with. Most
> changes by manufacturers were minor, like rubber or spokes or handlebar
tape.
> If the catalog was printed, then a supplier went out of business, etc.,
and
> none or few of that model year came equipped with that component, would a
> sensible person argue that the bike MUST have that stated component to be
> 'original?' Ummm...no. If Joe Consumer has to have an aerobioplus
> whatchamacallit installed on his new bike because it decreases the
> ergocoefficient of friction by .075% (as reported by a famous cycling
> website/magazine/voice in his head) does that mean it is more original?
> Ummm...no.
> My unscientific, simplistic response would be that for 99% of bikes, the
> catalog description would come pretty close to the other answers. If I
felt
> it was worth making a distinction, I'd first buy one size larger
underwear,
> then rethink the issue.
> Sorry Dale,
> Ed Kasper
> Detroit MI