Hmmmmm - a little buyers remorse jerry? I saw this bike and would have bought it for 1K if it were my (larger) size ... If it fits, if its straight and rides well, is a fair market price ... Ive been looking for a chrome Paramount or Cinelli in my size for a year; not easy to find at any price. You might call Waterford to see if they know this bike ...
Did you ask for additional photos and details before bidding? What's wrong with a couple of NOS campy parts anyway -especially hubs?
Saddle mis-representation is a wank, I agree. (oops can I say that here without offending someone?)
I would feel good about your purchase. Now if the frame is a bit too small (or large), rusting or corroding, decals are blistering, its not straight, derailleur pulleys are actually Suntour, and the rims are bent - Id think about sending it back! Have you ridden it yet?
Greg arnold nyc
Jerome & Elizabeth Moosjerrymoos@sbcglobal.net9/19/04 10:32 PM
> Here is the chrome Paramount with the GP4s in question:
>
> http://ebay.com/
> =1#ebayphotohosting
>
> The seller described the Unicanitor saddle as "in great shape!!" (with
> exclamation marks, no less). In fact the saddle has all the lettering worn
> off and several tears in the leather, including one large one. Also, all
> componets except the Ti pivot bolts, SR HS and the stem were claimed to be
> original. In fact, the Cinelli bars are new logo, not even intermediate logo.
> Neither of these items was clearly shown in the photos. I emailed the seller
> pointing this out and also pointing out that the cranks are coded 1975, not
> 1973, although the RD is marked 1973. I sought a $75 price adjustment to
> cover my cost for replacing the trashed saddle and the incorrect bars. He
> replied that the saddle is in great shape for its age, even if worn and torn.
> He said I could return the bike for a full refund, but refused any partial
> refund. Complaints to eBay and PayPal have not changed his position. The
> only reason he is willing to give a full refund is that he has been offered
> over $!
> 1200
> after the auction ended.
>
> Now it appears the GP4s are not original, as I rather suspected. In addition,
> the brake calipers and hubs seem almost too good compared the the RD, brake
> levers and cranks, which have noticeable wear. It almost looks as if the
> calipers and hubs were recently replaced with NOS ones. Even the frame seems
> almost too good, compared to some of the components. It could be this frame
> was rechromed and redecaled by someone very good, perhaps Waterford.
>
> So it is possible what I have here is an expertly restored chrome Paramount
> with some original parts, some NOS period correct replacements, and a few
> too-new replacements. Anyone have an opinion as to whether this bike is
> original (except the parts noted) or restored? Also, any opinions as to
> whether, if restored, it is still worth the $1075 price, or perhaps I should
> take the seller up on his offer of a full refund?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Houston, TX
>
>
>
> OROBOYZ@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/19/2004 9:10:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> << Speaking of the Mavic time, I have a 1973 all chrome Paramount with what
> are claimed to be original wheels with GP4 tubular rims. Was the GP4 available
> in 1973? When was it introduced? >>
>
> I don't think so.. The model GP4 was a "consumer" rim after the success of
> the mod. SSC , which came out in 1975. My guess would have been 77 or 78 for
> the
> GP$ at the earliest...
> Plus Schwinn complete bikes never came with Mavic sewup rims to my knowledge.
> It was always either Schwinn Approved Super Champions or Weinmann wood
> filled.
>
> Dale Brown
> Greensboro, NC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
Greg Arnold Senior Partner No Fat Communications 12 West 37th Street New York, NY 10018 http://www.nofatcomm.com
212-629-7595
greg@nofatcomm.com