Jerry,
I doubt the bike was a painted model that was later chromed, as there would have been a lot of prep work to do and it would likely show in areas difficult to reach with the polisher. It's pretty common for decals to get replaced, but those are at least the right color and may very well be original. The Campy brakes were an extra cost option and the wait for Paramounts in that era was pretty long, so a lot of them were sold off dealer floors with Weinmann centerpulls. Those may have been replaced later, but they still look like a contemporary version.
I am still unconvinced by those who say that this bike would have come with Schwinn-approved labeled rims. I have 4 sets of Paramount wheels that I believe are original to bikes manufactured between '72 and '74 and they all have the standard Mavic foil decals, as did the '72 that I bought new the first year I worked in a "real" shop, and every other Paramount that I recall from those years. Other rims may have been used as supplies dictated, but the standard Mavics were certainly found on many new Paramounts in the early '70s. Catalog listings are not a reliable substitute for observation.
You didn't do too bad on that bike. The big thing is whether or not the chrome is good. I don't particularly like the chrome bikes, but I think I am in the minority on this. Replacing the saddle, bars and rims could be done for $100 to $200, if you lace the wheels yourself, and it still would be in the right ballpark for what these bikes often go for. Most bikes need some kind of restoration when you get them anyway. You're going to be out a fair hunk of change if you have to pay shipping on the bike both ways, and I'll bet you still have buyer's remorse when you are done. Most people spend a lot more than that on a laptop computer and it's junk in 4 or 5 years. Where are your priorities!
Steve Barner, Bolton, Vermont
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:32:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR]Original Paramount?
>
> Here is the chrome Paramount with the GP4s in question:
>
>
http://ebay.com/
>
> 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