Jan brings up some interesting points. Unfortunately, getting a positive Id on a particular bike is quite hard, even in cases where it shouldn't be.
Parts do get changed over the years, especially under the harsh conditions of pro racing, or even amateur racing at an elite level. And if the bikes I have are any indication, the paint jobs are changed and "freshened up" nearly as much. The pacing bike I got from Matteo a couple years ago is a merckx,as seen in the cast in logos but painted and badged as an Atala. The 1984 US team TTT bike from the Olympics was a Raleigh for the Olympics, but repainted as a Huffy at some later date. They painted directly over the stickers,and applied new ones. Same thing for a 7-11 team bike, but just for the true temper logo which changed between seasons.
which brings up the point that some bikes got used for more than 1 year or race. And that some if not all riders likely used more than 1 bike on a major tour. Certainly that was the case by the 80's since there were readily discernable bikes made especially for the time trials.
So, in this case, I'd have to take the approach more as "is it likely or possible that Koblet used this bike in the 51 tour?" the size is apparently right, as is the team paint job. But there are inconsistencies like the different dropouts, and some parts since I'd be amazed if any of the parts were used in 51, that can pretty much be discounted as a real problem. I'd have to know more about this era, and what was standard practice as far as multiple bikes for riders in a major tour to have any idea as to how certain I could be that it was "right" (some would be easier, like if a rider were especially tall or short) So it would seem to be a team bike in Koblets size, that was possibly built in 51 because of the early dropouts. Since I don't know how many team members may have ridden the same size, I'd have to say it's possible. One of the photos mentions a theory that this may be a time trial bike, which seems plausible. Why? I think it's likely that the bike Rebour drew was the "winning bike", most probably the one ridden on the last day. So, with the provenance, I would feel reasonably ok about this bike.
My efforts to research some of my bikes has made me think of a project that's related to all this, but I'll propose it in another message since it's long, and mostly it's own issue.
Steve Birmingham Lowell, MA USA
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:58:51 -0800 From: Jan Heine <heine94@earthlink.net> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]Fakes and real team bikes, how to prove? Message-ID: <a06230947c3c085462abf@[192.168.1.33]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 9
The questionable Koblet bike brings back memories...
Once, we travelled in France to photograph bikes for various projects. We went to a museum that exhibited, among many other machines, a bike each ridden by Anquetil and Hinault.
The bikes were in rough shape, with many components that were incorrect. That alone was disappointing, but we figured by switching components between a few bikes, we could make them presentable.
The Anquetil bike was easy, because it matched a Rebour drawing. The frame had the characteristic "J - A" engraved in the seatstay caps, leaving no doubt to its authenticity. As I was removing the cranks, I looked at the seat lug, and noticed how the top and down tube were bulging. This joint had been severely overheated. Checking the other joints revealed no bulging. Looking carefully at the seatstay caps, I noticed that the caps with the "J - A" engraving were brazed on top of the original seatstay caps! In the process, the DIY specialist had overheated that joint until every tube was bulging out of the seat lug.
The Hinault bike looked fine, but comparing historic photos brought some doubts, too. During the season in question, Hinault's bikes were fillet-brazed, yet this one had lugs.
The owner of the bikes had paid a lot of money to a well-known collector for these bikes. When I later told the story to a dealer in antique motorbikes, he laughed and said "If the bikes were real, the collector would have kept them."
This brings up the question of what is acceptable as proof that a famous bike is real? Obviously, the physical bike needs to match historic photos, but that does not preclude a look-alike. A letter from the original racer is nice... Serial numbers are good, but many team bikes don't have them, and in any case, nobody records the serial number of the winning bike after a race.
I think in the end, it comes down to a very good paper trail. If the bike was bought from the racer, and not for a huge amount of money, then it is likely to be real, as there is no incentive for the racer to sell a fake.
I am interested what others think about this. Establishing some guidelines may be useful before this subject gets so muddled that even real bikes will be considered fakes.
Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
140 Lakeside Ave #C
Seattle WA 98122
http://www.bikequarterly.com