Ted; Where would my HUFFY fit in.
Kidding of course, but the thread of thought you talk about should open up some interesting points of view. Only sticking point is that it will be impossible to set execting standards within each category.
Example; Within Hetchin's alone their is a wide variation as to rarity, and as well as quality as the latter frames are not as well made as much earlier frames. Tom Rawson would be better of chiming in on this one, as he has better understanding of the Hetchin's history than I. Some frames were made in very small quantity, and some in larger batches. Several Hetchins in my group are extremely rare with only the highest quality componants, but as much as I would like to put them in #1, they do not match up to rareness or quality of Singer, Herse, Caminargent etc, but as for rarity a few bikes I have are as rare as Oscar Eggs, caminargents etc.
My non-existant Huffy is off the charts on the bottom end, although my understanding is that they did make Olympic track machines.
Best regards, Peter Naiman
Shorewood, WI
> Often times we get on the subject of a really
> classic
> bike (Hetchins, Masi, Peugeot, etc) and have very
> in-depth exchanges of information that add to our
> knowledge of these bicycles.
>
> I know there are "Rolls Royce" cycles such as Rene
> Herse and Alex Singer that are, for the most part,
> out
> of one's consideration when purchasing a vintage
> cycle
> due to the hefty price tag that they bare.
>
> There are so many quality bicycles from all over the
> world. But it appears the "big four" are: France,
> Great Britain, Italy, and the U.S.
>
> Now if we were to take the bicycles researched and
> discussed on CR as well as the hundreds of builders
> that appear on the CR website, and put them into
> "tiers" how would they stack up?
>
> I know every single person on the list would have a
> different order and it would be incredibly time
> consuming to try to do this. But I think it would
> provide us with a general consensus of what the CR
> list members consider "top tier" as well as "no
> comment" classic cycles.
>
> The other thing I would like to see out of these
> lists
> is where Masi would fit in. Why Masi specifically?
> Because it seems to be the most discussed bicycle on
> the list.
>
> So here are your tiers:
>
> 1. TOP TIER: An absolute classic in every way; a
> total rarity; a machine constructed to the highest
> possible standards. One of the most desirable
> cycles
> to collectors as well as curators.
>
> 2. UPPER TIER: A well constructed machine; very
> rare;
> a collector's bike, but not as rare as TIER 1.
>
> 3. MID TIER: A classic bicycle with some defining
> features, but mid-level components.
>
> 4. LOWER TIER: A bicycle within the time line of
> our
> group with low-end components and worth mainly what
> it
> is worth to the owner.
>
> I know this is a "tall order" to fill, but where
> would
> the bikes we discuss fit in and for what reasons?
>
> Ted Baer
> Palo Alto, CA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
===== Peter Naiman Alias Hetchinspete4420 North Ardmore AvenueShorewood, WI 53211-1418
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Classicrendezvous mailing list
Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
http://www.bikelist.org/