Chuck, you ask me to tell you what I know of the Brooks B.17 Comp. Std. 'Campagnolo' model; the answer is 'not very much' ,I'm afraid - but then there's probably not very much to know anyway? I guess that most of those likely to be interested in the matter already know that these saddles were introduced in 1959 (which should mean that all frames are date-stamped), and that they were not very popular because of a perceived lateral instability - also the need to acquire the necessary seat-post, perhaps? I've no such saddles dated later than '62, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was when production ceased - it's usually fairly easy to establish when an item was first available, but cessation of production is rarely advertised. Those most likely to know would surely be the 'lightweight dealers' active in the 1960's - so what about it, chaps (and ladies ?). I would have suggested an enquiry of George Flegg, who retired as Works Manager at Brooks a few years ago after spending probably all his working life with the Company, but my most recent contacts with him suggest that his memory for detaill is now very poor. It's only in the fairly recent past, due to customer demand, that I've taken much interest in post-war Brooks stuff (Boer War, that is) on a 'need to know' basis, and I can't pretend to be an expert on 'modern' saddles, but in the last few years I've re-covered probably eight to ten of these 'Campag.' models - all have been trimmed more tightly than the standard Comps., but I don't think that any had the really 'snub' noses of some of the later Professionals. As with the standard Comps., some had the three vent holes and some didn't, but I'm afraid that I never took much interest in frame dates (except for practical reasons, when I had two or more 'on the go' at the same time) or a possible correlation with 'venting'. There was one instance when an original top had been 'pricked' for vents and significant penetration had occured at points one and three, but the holes had never been fully consummated, so to speak. I feel sure that this must have been done in the factory, even if other vented saddles had had their holes 'retro-fitted' by their occupants. This saddle belonged to either Larwence Kurtz or Wayne Jolly (I never did find out which, and neither seems readily available these days to ask), and I know that a question was raised about it in C.R. at the time - without response, so far as I'm aware. All these saddles appeared to have ben dyed black originally (although I think I've seen brown ones offered on eBay sometimes), and none had a name-plate at the rear. The stamping on the top of all was a small 'CAMPAGNOLO' in block letters within a very flattened oval; I've been told that there was also a version stamped with the name in the well-known cursive script, but I've never seen one or even evidence of one. The person who claims (no doubt, quite legitimately) to have made the original stamping dies for Brooks says that he is sure that no such stamping was ever used by them. Rivets, in all cases, were the small, nickel-plated ones common at the time (were the 'Condor-Brooks' saddles the first to be fitted with larger, unplated rivets at about the same time?). Early frames appear to be catalogued only with chrome plated finish, but I think one or two of mine are enamelled. There must be several members of the list who have examples of this saddle, and it might be of interest (to me, at any rate) to have details which help to 'fill in the picture' further. Tony Colegrave, Northiam, E.Sussex. U.K.
>From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
>To: Tony Colegrave <tony_colegrave@hotmail.com>
>CC: CR Classic <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Subject: Re: [CR]Brooks saddle dating
>Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 22:37:29 -0700
>
>Tony, can you tell us what you know of the Brooks B.17 Competition
>Standard Campagnolo Model. Years made, variations, etc. I've seen one
>that didn't have the holes in the top or the nose trimmed (stamped 60 on
>the cantle plate) and another that had the three holes and the nose
>trimmed like a Brooks Pro (stamped 62 on the cantle).
>
>Chuck Schmidt
>South Pasadena, Southern California
>
>
>On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:19 AM, Tony Colegrave wrote:
>
>>
>> A few comments regarding Brooks' saddles, particularly Swallows, and
>>the question of dating and commissioning of 'NOS' examples.
>> The Swallow was introduced, as the Company's recent publicity has
>>reminded us, in 1936 and was originally catalogued as Champion Swallow -
>>no mention of B.17. In the 1939 Brooks catalogue it's still described as
>>C.S., although the Brown Bros. catalogue of that year lists it as
>>B.17C.S. All these original Swallows appear to have been constructed on
>>B.17N. frames.
>> It seems that 'slotted' bagloops started to disappear from the B.
>>17/Swallow range in 1937, and by 1939 all had been replaced with wire
>>loops attached between the cantles and the ends of the rails, or, in the
>>case of the Sprinter (quite understandably),dispensed with altogether.
>> When the B.17 range, but not Swallows, were re-introduced after the
>>war, in 1948, the bagloops were formed in appropriately-placed extension
>>tabs from the cantles, in the manner still used these days, with the
>>possible exception of the Flyer - which seems to have retained the wire
>>loops for some time post-war.
>> Production of Swallows appears to have resumed in 1951, when they were
>>catalogued by Brooks as B.17C.S., and were offered, probably for the
>>first time, with the option of chrome-plated frames and the 'new-style'
>>bagloops.
>> I've no idea when production of the Swallows ceased, but would guess
>>that it was mid- to late sixties; I've seen dated examples, but none
>>later than 1962. I've never seen an example with an oval stamping - all
>>the early ones that I've come across have a 'sausage- shaped' stamping
>>(perhaps the 'wurst' of Brooks' stampings, eh?), but I suppose that these
>>could be described as oval-ish?
>> When it comes to commissioning into use a 'NOS' Swallow which could be
>>anything from 40 to 70 years old (and may not have been stored in an
>>ideal environment during some of that time), one or two caveats might be
>>in order? The leather would probably benefit from a course of treatment
>>with 'Proofide', and even a light application of neatsfoot oil (normally
>>to be kept well away from leather saddles) to the obvious 'stress points'
>>along the edge, particularly at the junctions with the tabs which rivet
>>together underneath. This treatment shouldn't be rushed, but given some
>>time to 'do its work'. Careful attention should be given to the
>>stitching, which is likely to be rather frail after many years,; if this
>>shows signs of decay, it might be wise to replace it so that the
>>stiffening wire should not be able to break loose and damage the leather
>>and/or rider.
>> The thought occurs - will this mean the 'beginning of the end' for
>>eBay, if folks actually start using this 'NOS' stuff?
>> Tony Colegrave, Northiam, East Sussex, U.K.
>>
>>
>>>From: Toni Theilmeier <toni.theilmeier@t-online.de>
>>>To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>>>Subject: [CR]Brooks saddle dating
>>>Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:14:37 +0200
>>>
>>>Can anyone confirm my idea that saddles dating from before WWII don´t
>>>
>>>have saddle bag loops, but reinforced oblong holes in the leather right
>>>
>>>and left of the badge, and that loops only appeared after WWII? Looking
>>>carefully at some catalogues makes me think this.
>>>
>>>Regards, Toni Theilmeier, Belm, Germany.