Hi Mark, (sent to him previously, but forgot to include the CR list)
To start, I just picked up the bike not too long ago to use as a commuter.
For the price that I paid and the purpose that I have for it, I would not be
disappointed in any way. The components that came with it and the Campy
Record wheels that the seller had previously given to me more than make up
for what I paid. This bike should do its job nicely.
>From what I know, my seller bought it from a guy somewhere around Des
Moines, IA who stated he was the original owner. I believe that the story
is that the original owner bought it in 1978, which somewhat matches up to
the Romic serial system and the serial number on the BB. 10360*121076*
>From what little I know of the serial numbers and frame dates for Ray, frame
number 1036 seems very believable for a bike built in December 1976.
This bike was used for a period of time and then turned into a campus commuter, as I believe the owner was a teacher. This is when it got spray painted another shade of blue.
My opinion is that since he did not ask for much and Romic is such an
obscure name, so why bother coming up with a backstory for the bike? Of
course, this is all theory at the time and generally irrelevant. I'm just
curious.
>From what I understand of Ray, it sounds like he was a no nonsense kind of
guy and favored a quality frame, while generally ignoring aesthetics. This
is why I put emphasis on seeing some other lugs, just to see how it
compares. I've heard of poor quality lugwork on these frames, but I have
not seen many.
Oh yeah, another detail that may be helpful...the seatpost is 27.2, which made me assume this would be 531. I'll admit that I am not the most knowledgeable among us, but which asian shops would have been using 531 at that time? (Upon proofreading, this seems a bit smart-assed. I assure you that this is not my intention.)
Best regards, Matt Beecher Yorkville, IL
PS. I agree on the signs of shoddy workmanship. The lugs are ugly.