Chuck,
I thought your "hierarchy" was quite nicely put and
more importantly, it was informative. It appeared to
me to be the most thorough list I've seen of a
possible status of a collectible frame. My only
quibble when I read it at the time was the "thick
imron" slam at the end. It could read to be a slam at
a particular frame owner/frame painter, maybe even a
list member or two here, and I think that could be
reason for sorrow and regret. But, if the slam is an
arbitrary example, among dozens of restoration no-nos,
then the slam was purely instructional. So there's my
side comment. But Harvey "hummpf" Sachs's quibble
seemed to me to be an all-around defense of every
unique owner's sensory experience of every unique
bicycle, just to add come color to your list, to flesh
out the possibilities. And I'm all with him on the
possible funk factor. Somebody, somewhere, has a
restored 1960 suicide-shifter Schwinn that I want
badly, and that Harvey 'funkmeister" Sachs and I
concurred about a while back. And I should also add
here, that it was the effects of looking at pics of
bikes provided by you, Chuck, from one of your
shindigs, that kind of turned the corner for me --
captured my heart a bit -- about bicycle passion.
Anything unique to you about the year 1971?
Joe Starck,
Madison, Wisconsin
> Harvey Sachs wrote:
> >
> > Well, folks, I guess we have it here in a
> nutshell... Different strokes for different folks,
> and no preferences ranking implied on my end.
> >
> > Chuck has set it up as a hierarchy of value which
> we can share, modify, or just say, "hummpf. Fine
> for him, but I can't imagine doing that myself."
> I'll admit to enjoying having other people admire a
> bike, and I routinely put a bike or two on the floor
> at Cirque. But the judging isn't why I do it: I
> restore them for the pleasure it brings me, and the
> pleasure some of my bikes are bringing to others (I
> think of a '72 Paramount that's now happy in Kansas,
> and a Medici in Maryland). I do it because I love
> doing it, to ride them, and to let others ride them.
> I put them on the Cirque floor in the hope that
> others will find them interesting or a pleasure to
> the eyes. I can't -- won't -- reduce it to a single
> line from best to least. To me, Chuck's categories
> are different kinds of fruit, all to be enjoyed but
> not compared.
> >
> > so, my vintage bikes are for riding, not for being
> judged. Else I never would have put a lot of time
> (and more than a hundred dollars!) into a '65 Sears
> Ted Williams Sport Racing, which brings great
> amusement to those of a certain age, and replicates
> my first 10-speed. I get bikes that please me or
> seem to be very worthwhile, and keep those that
> capture my heart. Pretty simple.
> >
> > harvey "waited 30 years for an experienced
> Cinelli" sachs
> > mcLean va.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> Harvey, I've never judged a bicycle show in my life.
> The All Masi Show
> was a hypothetical, what I thought would be an
> interesting thing to
> discuss. You choose not to participate; can't
> imagine it actually you say.
>
> I'm saddened that you think (and make the inference)
> that I also don't
> "get bikes that please me or seem to be very
> worthwhile, and keep those
> that capture my heart." That my bikes would be for
> judging at bike
> shows and not for riding. What I thought would be
> an interesting
> diversion for the list has suddenly turned sour and
> made me sorry I
> brought it up now.
>
> Think I'll go on my ride now instead of later in the
> day when it warms up...
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, Southern California (where the sun
> is shinning thank you
> very much)
>
> .
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/