[CR]odd-ball, rare, and non-spec bikes

I'd like to add to the post I made yesterday and expend on why I find catalog spec bikes boring. I'd also like to show what I find very interesting and see if others have the same kink. Sure a Masi with full panto is kinda interesting and a bit limited in number, but it's much more common than the Paramount with all the milled and drilled stuff that was the discussion last week. If you look at Chuck's page about listie Peter Johnson and Frank Spivey http://www.velo-retro.com/peterjohnson.html you see things that bare truly rare and interesting. As Brain B. stated in an earlier email, " there were only about 100 sets of the 3TTT bars and engraved stems and embossed saddles." That may be very few in comparison to unaltered parts, but it's quite a bit in comparison to actual rare parts like the ones shown on Chuck's page. From my view I'm more interested in something that is 1 of 5 items instead of 1 of 100.

I've now seen about half the bikes that Art Stump built in the flesh and each one was very different from the others. Wether you find the ornateness and modification of these bikes and their parts interesting is a matter of opinion, but for me originality counts for a lot. Of course the guy only built a dozen bikes so my interest in true rarity also comes into the picture too. Of course a lot of the big builders could get in the originality and rare game. If you look about halfway down this page http://www.velo-retro.com/vrII4.html you'll see a Cinelli with a full Altenberger outfit from the factory. I'm not a big Cinelli fan (really hate the seat binder), but this is a bike I'd love to own. I remember seeing it at VR and thinking it was one of the coolest bikes at the show. Few folks paid any attention to it which was too bad since they may never see another one again.

The bike industry was built by original thinkers and tinkerers who saw a problem and tried to fix it. Tullio though of the QR while racing with cold fingers and changed the future through problem solving. When Phil Wood and Chris King started making stuff they saw a problem with the products available and set out to remedy that problem. These companies have prospered over the years where folks like Weyless went away, and a few like Hi-E and Bullseye are still out there but under the radar. The fore mentioned Art Stump didn't like the currently available vertical dropouts and made his own. His dropouts were third in my list of interesting behind the G.P. Wilson dropouts. Number one is of course Bill Philbrook's hand cut ones as seen on this bike <http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British/Philbrook_TTframe.htm>. The best of bikes are from folks that thought beyond the status quo and see improvement and difference to be what makes things special.

Anyway those are just some thoughts of mine and might help clarify why I think some things are boring and really not rare in the bigger picture. Feel free to comment on any of this if you like, but I do also have a question for my own further education. I've been trying to find out about companies before the '70s like Phill Wood, Hi-E, ETC. I think I only know about the companies I do because they're American. I'm sure folks have been doing this kind of small scale problem solving long before the '70s and in other countries. Any info and leads would be much appreciated. best, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives off to a chilly, foggy ride this morning and the 6-day this evening Vancouver, B.C.