To quote Don
> I am always surprised at the pricing of cinelli super corsas in the
> early 1970's, vs. the american equivalent, a schwinn paramount p-10
> or maybe p-12. Let me preface this by saying that I think that the
> cinellis are beautiful bikes, _however_, to state this in the most
> provocative way possible :
>
> is one chromed lug and one fancy-painted headbadge really
> worth $1000 extra?
>
> what do people think ?? Was the paramount a "ripoff" of the cinelli
> artistic design? Who adopted this understated look first, cinelli or
> schwinn ?? Because from 10' away, or at 20 mph, it's hard to tell the
> difference between the bikes.
Charles and Jay have both pointed out the clear handling differences between one and another bike. But I believe they missed Don's point. I read his comment above to be solely related to the appearance of the bike. Perhaps he is one of the many vintage bike lovers who do not ride often, or at all, and are therefore much more concerned with appearance. In such a case, he is almost certainly correct at questioning the added cost of the Cinelli. As to whether one was a rip-off of the other, I don't think either would consider themselves to be the precursor of the other. Cinelli did however develop a few elements that were fully unique such as the 'Cinelli' fork crown and 'Cinelli' seatlug bolt fixation system. The fork crown design became one of the industry standards because of technical merits, whereas the seatlug bolt was never truly replicated by others. Now the Schwinnophiles can respond about the Paramount features that were unique to them.
--
Steven Maasland
Moorestown, NJ