Hmm,
I am getting a bit more confused as folks raise good points...
Does seem to be good possibility that dropouts are the good bit earlier ones - but from the photos it looks like the fronts don't have the o - and the rear left might not either. But the dropouts do have eyelets that appear to be of earlier style (more beefy) - but the rear dropouts especially are installed in a very sloppy way for a Cinelli - much more sloppy than on any Cinelli I've seen so far. Now that doesn't mean they are replaced, it might just mean I haven't seen enough. So all this is as clear as mud. And the problem with dropouts is that those seem to often hang around shops and bins for years if not decades, so dating a bike with them can be a tad risky I think.
Regarding the headbadge, I do recall, but I could be wrong, that both width and height were different on the earlier ones. That isn't to say that the smaller one might have existed earlier than we thought, but bikes going back to about 1955 or so seem to use the big one and the little badge won't extend to the screw holes (of course the old holes could have been filled in).
So the headbadge issue and the fact that the lugs look post 1956 or 1957 make me think later. My gut is telling me that the bike is about a 1957 or 1958 with a mix of earlier dropouts.
In any case, I don't think anyone, especially myself, has this one figured out for sure.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
> Mike,
\r?\n> I think as Dale sorta pointed out, the rear dropouts have the earliest
\r?\n> style Campagnolo dropouts, "BREV o. Campagnolo" stamping.
\r?\n> that is a sign of early 1950s. the spring hole, I believe came later.
\r?\n> I know very little about Cinellis, but Campagnolo parts are well documented.
\r?\n> see hi.campy website-http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~campa/newpage12.htm
\r?\n> (tanslate it of course)
\r?\n> John Barron may also be able to elaborate about the dropout.
\r?\n> or Steven Maasland.
\r?\n> Were the badge holes further apart on the earlier CInellis? I know the
\r?\n> badge was a bit taller, but was it equaly wider? I have held the two
\r?\n> badges in my hands at once, but cannot recall the width difference,
\r?\n> only the height.
\r?\n> ralph
\r?\n> philadelphia, PA
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> On 5/3/07, hersefan@comcast.net wrote:
\r?\n> > Perhaps I am missing something - the bike being later seems to be rather
\r?\n> obvious. The first clue is the lugs - they are the later style that came into
\r?\n> use around the late 1950's. I think Pergolizzi's bike that was on ebay a few
\r?\n> weeks ago had those earlier style lugs, and there are a number of Cinelli bikes
\r?\n> out there that have them.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > To my eyes, the frame looks nearly identical to the one I had on ebay last
\r?\n> week that didn't hit $700 (sold later off ebay for a good bit more, all very
\r?\n> surprising). The dropouts on Dale's bike do look like later ones (the clue to
\r?\n> the one I was selling as likely having had a dropout replacement I think). The
\r?\n> one I sold was certainly built around 1959 to 1961. I'd peg the date of the bike
\r?\n> in question as being from 1958 to even as late as 1967 - with the dropouts
\r?\n> pushing the build date to the later period as wise Harvey Sachs points out.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Cinelli Serial numbers from what I can tell are generally meaningless - a
\r?\n> "stroll" through the Cupertino log book years ago showed very weak correlation
\r?\n> between year and serial number, although bikes sold in very close time to one
\r?\n> another often had close numbers. But those batches of similar numbers were not
\r?\n> sequential. Quite maddening!
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Another clue would be if the bike in question accomodated the reproduction
\r?\n> headbadge without difficulty - if so it is a late 50's bike or later. The
\r?\n> really hard-to-find earlier bikes used a larger size headbadge with screws for
\r?\n> fastening farther apart.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Mike Kone in Boulder CO
\r?\n> > -------------- Original message --------------
\r?\n> > From: oroboyz@aol.com
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > > Harv:
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I hear this is the case:
\r?\n> > > << there were much earlier drop-outs without the boss and hole. >>
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > Open C is the clue there (I am told)
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > Dale Brown
\r?\n> > > Greensboro, North Carolina USA
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > -----Original Message-----
\r?\n> > > From: hmsachs@verizon.net
\r?\n> > > To: oroboyz@aol.com
\r?\n> > > Cc: hsachs@alumni.rice.edu; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> > > Sent: Thu, 3 May 2007 8:30 PM
\r?\n> > > Subject: Re: Is this an old Cinelli road frame or what?
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > With all due respect, Dale, I believe that the bike is post-1961. Either
\r?\n> that,
\r?\n> > > or the right rear dropout has been replaced. It is my understanding, which
\r?\n> could
\r?\n> > > be wrong, that 1961 and earlier Campy drop-outs with gear hangers all had a
\r?\n> > > raised boss ~ 5 mm wide with a rounded upper edge. This extended from the
\r?\n> gear
\r?\n> > > hanger upwards. In almost all cases, this boss was penetrated by a small
\r?\n> hole ~
\r?\n> > > 1 mm diameter, which was the stop for the tension spring on the Campy Sport
\r?\n> and
\r?\n> > > similar derailleurs. The pictures clearly show that this bike has neither
\r?\n> boss
\r?\n> > > nor hole.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > To me, the simplest hypothesis is that this bike is post-1961. Alternatives:
\r?\n> > > 1) pre-1961, but drop-out replaced later, perhaps when refinished.
\r?\n> > > 2) Harvey's wrong, and there were much earlier drop-outs without the boss
\r?\n> and
\r?\n> > > hole. I'd love to find out about such.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I speculate, but it seems to me to be much easier to make a bike in the
\r?\n> 1960s
\r?\n> > > with earlier components than to make one in the 1950s with 1960s components.
\r?\n> > > Indeed, I have one complete set each of 531 DB tubes and Columbus tubes,
\r?\n> NIB,
\r?\n> > > and waiting to build up a 1970s frameset each. :-)
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > thanks
\r?\n> > > harvey sachs
\r?\n> > > mcLean va.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > oroboyz@aol.com wrote:
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > > I knew a few would love to challenge that query...
\r?\n> > > > > That particular Altenburger-equipped Cinelli you refer to is now watched
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > > over by Ken Wallace, proprietor and keeper of the women at the Bisbee >
\r?\n> Bicycle
\r?\n> > > Brothel. The serial number will tell us more...
\r?\n> > > > > This just sold Cinelli is older than I( thought, subsequent details lead
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > > many astute observers to place it at least solidly in the 1950s, even >
\r?\n> early
\r?\n> > > that decade...
\r?\n> > > > > Dale Brown
\r?\n> > > > cycles de ORO, Inc.
\r?\n> > > > 1410 Mill Street
\r?\n> > > > Greensboro, North Carolina 27408 USA
\r?\n> > > > 336.274.5959
\r?\n> > > > http://www.cyclesdeoro.com
\r?\n> > > > http://www.classicrendezvous.com
\r?\n> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
\r?\n> > > > From: hmsachs@verizon.net
\r?\n> > > > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> > > > Sent: Thu, 3 May 2007 7:40 PM
\r?\n> > > > Subject: [CR]eBay self-outing: Is this the oldest Cinelli road frame you >
\r?\n> > > have
\r?\n> > > > > Dale Brown asked, provocatively, > > "57 CM, serial #273! Early 1960s?
\r?\n> > > Maybe even late 1950s? > >
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> http://ebay.com/
\r?\n> > > 60114300318 >
\r?\n> > > > 260114300318>" > >
\r?\n> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
\r?\n> > > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free >
\r?\n> from
\r?\n> > > AOL at AOL.com .
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > ________________________________________________________________________
\r?\n> > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
\r?\n> AOL
\r?\n> > > at AOL.com.