[CR]Original run Carlsbad Masi. LONG

(Example: Production Builders:Frejus)

From: <"richardsachs@juno.com">
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 02:44:11 GMT
To: petervb@compassnewmedia.com
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Original run Carlsbad Masi. LONG

i just returned from a night out and cannot possibly address all the mail pertaining to this issue so i will piggy-back on to this one. peter - i was unaware you were a listee. here is what i want to add to this thread and i'll be as civil as i can without being too ambiguous. i was contacted by peter to assess a frame that he possessed for the purpose of valueing it. in the course of a few week's emails it was determined that i might also be interested in it - not just assessing it, but owning it. i told peter that the pics weren't enough and we agreed that he'd send the frame to me and i'd send it back. upon examining it i found all that i stated this a.m. in my initial reply to tom sander's first post. read it. i was sheepish about outing my opinions on it and qualified my reply as such. i dislike the herd mentality that sometimes occurs onlist when it comes to ebay policing. i went on record years ago stating this dislike - others, the majority, agreed that the list was cool with it - so i just went with the flow. i prolly made 3 comments total re an ebay "scam" through the ensuing years, prolly due to to lack of self-control. today was one of them. in one or two of the private emails i read that perhaps i concocted the story in order to lowball the seller. F(*^&$# that. okay? i can torch tubes until next sunday but the last thing i would do is take a supposedly rare and early masi and repair it. it would no longer be a masi or the work of masi. nuff said on that. to wit, if peter had asked me prior to the auction, i would have reiterated my position: a cool old frame - but - less value due to damage previously noted. he didn't concur with my opinion "then" and, in listing it yesterday, he didn't seek it as a follow-up. there's nothing i can do about that. i would like to add that it was also brought to my attention this p.m. that the archives are in the public domain; i didn't know that. as i wrote this a.m. i was opining privately on our CR list and would never have gone to this "trouble" on public forums such as usenet or http://www.roadbikereview.com. i stand by my notes from today. i apologize for tarnishing the possibility of higher bids for this auction. i can't unring this bell. the last thing i'm going to say about this, i hope, is that i saw the follow-up pics that were posted and was reminded of another reason i was not sure this frame had holy grail status: to my memory the fork had been cut too short to have the full length necessary to accomodate a n.r. headset. i "recall" it being 4-5mm too short. see the pic on the left to view. good night.
e-RICHIE
chester, ct


-- Peter vanBeckum wrote:


It's my listing on eBay, and there is no attempt to deceive anybody.

Richard knows the frame because he was once interested in buying it for a resto project, like his other 2. I've never met him, just know of his reputation. I shipped it to him. Then he told me that he suspected there was a crash in the frame's history. So, he would not be willing to pay my asking price. He still wanted to buy it, just for less. Since I wasn't ready to sell it for less, he shipped it back.

I stripped the rattle-can purple paint off of the frame, using a great deal of time and care. Not once did I ever find an indication of damage or rework. All of the brazing looks perfect to me. Trying to respect Dale's guidelines, it is hard for me not to say that maybe Richard wasn't up front with me in the first place. Let's not go there.

Today, i took some additional pictures of the frame. Since, I can't edit the eBay listing as there are bids, the pics are posted at a free pic hosting service. What I did was take a metal straight-edged ruler and hold it against the top tube and down tube, all the way around. There aren't gaps and bulges. You can see the pics at - http://www.freepichosting.com/Albums/421551585.html Since i am definitely not an expert on frames, this was my best attempt to substantiate my claim that the frame is in good shape. If someone can suggest another more precise method, just let me know.

Thank you.

Peter vanbeckum Redwood City, CA mint 1975 California Masi Colnago DeRosa Nishiki Pro - daily rider


> In the automotive world, having been informed by an expert that a vehicle
> had been involved in a collision, then attempting to hide that information
> from a potential buyer constitutes fraud. Failure to disclose problems with
> a house that is for sale also constitutes fraud. I don't see why it would be
> any different for a bicycle.
>
> It sure looks to me like a case of attempt to perpetrate fraud, as the
> seller must know that a damaged frame is worth significantly less than an
> undamaged one.
>
> Steve Barner, not a lawyer, but not buying any bent Masis either, Bolton,
> Vermont