"people like to put bikes together as a hobby for the satisfaction of completion."
very true joe, very good point. it blends smoothly into the other good point made by nick zatezalo's, that other people probably don't perceive our bikes the same way we do. i'm sure that we tend to over-appreciate the bikes we have built/completed. i realize now i was definitely overestimating the desirability of that first colnago i sold on ebay, as a whole bike, simply by virtue of the fact that i had put it together. i now understand that the effort, time and care i put into selecting the components for that colnago, and assembling it, do mean a lot, but only to me. i no longer presume to think that the way i built it is so correct or superior that that it is a sin to change anything, or to part it out. today i don't blame the buyer at all for buying it just for the tires.
with respect to what peter kohler said, that it was wrong for the buyer to part out a bike that chuck schlesinger put together with effort, i would say that taken to its logical extreme, this would mean that once completed, a bike should never be altered, even by the person who put it together originally. also, what if the new owner wants to lavish even more effort, time and care on rebuilding the bike, than chuck did? is it ok then?
like mike kone indicated, if you want a bike to be preserved intact after you sell it, don't sell it to a stranger. sell it to someone you know who wants to keep it the way it is. to expect a stranger to preserve your bike (as i once did), is not realistic, or fair to the new owner.
ray dobbins miami florida
joebz@optonline.net wrote: There is a factor working where people like to put bikes together as a hobby for the satisfaction of completion. This applies to many other hobbies also. So the net result is that there is more money in parting out better quality bikes, right or wrong, than in selling complete bikes.
Joe Bender-Zanoni
Great Notch, NJ
> While what Lou says is true, it doesn't make Chuck feel any better.
\r?\n> And from my own experience with similar betrayals, I understand
\r?\n> why Chuck is upset. When I owned Bicycle Classics inc., there were
\r?\n> many bikes we could have parted out that we didn't - for the reason
\r?\n> that they should have stayed together. Now I also parted some out
\r?\n> that maybe I shouldn't have.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> But the reality is that almost all bikes are worth more apart than
\r?\n> together. That is why many of us often deal closely with friends
\r?\n> who we know will give certain items a good home. Economics does
\r?\n> not always allow for it.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> But we can still be mad.....
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Mike Kone in Boulder CO
\r?\n>
\r?\n> -------------- Original message --------------
\r?\n> From: LouDeeter@aol.com
\r?\n>
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Chuck Schlesinger said, about selling a bike and seeing someone
\r?\n> part it out:
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > "Oh well, I had to get it off my chest- hopefully you
\r?\n> > guys/gals can empathize with me."
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Chuck, when someone buys something from me, they own it. Unless
\r?\n> it was a
\r?\n> > historically significant bike, which means they probably didn't
\r?\n> get it from me
\r?\n> > anyway, as I said--they own it. It is their bike. If they want to
\r?\n> cut it
\r?\n> > up, sell it, give it to the homeless, it really isn't any of my
\r?\n> business.
\r?\n> > Sorry to sit on your chest, but that is life. My recommendation
\r?\n> is to enjoy
\r?\n> > what
\r?\n> > you have and the money you got for it. I mean, how do you think
\r?\n> your former
\r?\n> > child thinks---Daddy sold me! Lou Deeter, Orlando FL