Re: [CR]Holdsworth Cyclone E.bay

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:44:13 +0100
From: "Hilary Stone" <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: hersefan@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [CR]Holdsworth Cyclone E.bay
References: <041620082056.3710.480667FD000BBF4800000E7E2207020853020E000A9C9D0A08@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <041620082056.3710.480667FD000BBF4800000E7E2207020853020E000A9C9D0A08@comcast.net>
cc: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
cc: "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org"

Having checked the frame number (its in the 15000s) and the catalogues again I would agree that I was probably one year out in the dating - its almost certainly 1952... I am sorry I was in quite a rush when the listings were written and researched. The diamond shape cutouts in The Cyclone spearpoint lugs appear in the 1952 catalogue (printed for the 1951 autumn show) for the first time leaving it possible that this frame was built in 1951 but I would agree that its more likely to be 1952 itself. I have records of another frame, 16092 that was bought new in 1952 making it impossible for this frame to have been built in 1953.

Hilary Stone, Bristol, England

hersefan@comcast.net wrote:
> Rather than complain about things that seem rather trivial, why not explain and start a dialog as to why the dating on the Holdsworth might be wrong: then we all can learn! Even if Hillary's dating is correct, knowing the thought process of why you think it may be wrong is sure to be informative to those of us less knowledgable.
>
> Mike Kone in Boulder CO USA
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Doug Smith <douguk2007@hotmail.co.uk>
>
>> I have my doubts as to the dating of the Holdsworth Cyclone among
>> the items for sale on the listing tonight would'nt it be more helpful if
>> the frame numbers were made to be published so as a prospective
>> buyer would know whether any date quoted would be authentic.It
>> would give them the opportunity to check details with the experts!
>> Another point is to ask why many of the 62 items listed are allowed
>> of the OT set by the list rules. Why publish items on list taking up
>> space anyway when the seller normally then directs members to
>> E.Bay log on details.
>> Doug Smith
>> North Dorset
>> UK