Return to July 1997 indexEach month here in Classic Corner we feature something related to classic bikes and components, and I often get calls from owners of older bikes inquiring about the value or collectibility of this or that. I'm always talking with friends about what is classic and what is not in the bike world.
All of this discussion about "classic" bikes got me thinking about what determines collectibility and value, so this month I thought I would open the subject in Classic Corner, and see what some of you think.
I am an admitted "Italiaphile" when it comes to bikes and components from cycling's past. I believe that even now the best riding bikes and components come from Italy.
In my opinion, to hop on a De Rosa or Colnago with a nice set of silk sew ups and cruise down the road is the ultimate blend of simplicity, comfort, performance and style to be had.
To me, it is mostly a visceral thing. How does the bike ride, and is it pleasing to look at? This is usually the criteria for my modest collection, and Italian bikes almost always ride great and have loads of style. My friends believe that I wake up each morning and face Italy, but that's an exaggeration. I usually just face Vicenza.
The bicycle was almost simultaneously invented in America and France. America is the largest consumer market for performance bikes, but I am not alone in my affinity for bikes from the boot-shaped nation. Italian bikes have this mystic that sets them apart, and almost all of the inquiries that I receive for classic bikes are from customers looking for an Italian frame.
Is it hype, tradition, or just nonsense to think that these bikes are somehow better than offerings from other countries?
American frames are considered to be the best in the world over the past twenty five years or so in terms of build quality and precision, and our paint work has always been a cut above. But that mystic thing is lacking.
The most collectible bike made in the U.S. is probably a Confente. But Mario Confente was an Italian craftsman who was brought over by Masi and tricked into staying.
There are American builders whose bikes are sure to become collectible in the future. Bikes from Bayless, Eisentraut, Sachs, etc. are exquisite and well respected, but even they don't seem to stir the fire yet. Local Utah County builder Deor Jenson builds some of the finest frames that I have seen. Mitering and filing of the lugs on a Jenson frame is on par with the best frames available, and the ride is terrific; but will they become classics?
Recently there was an older Centurion in the shop for sale on consignment. It was a Semi-Pro built with the top Champion (later Tange Prestige) tubing, with nice paint and chrome lugs. Geometry was (dare I say it?) classic Italian, and the frame looked pretty and very well done. But I could not get any of my retro-type customers to give it a second look.
"What's wrong with it?' I thought to myself.
One customer said that it would make a cool cyclocross bike with some brazing work, but it wasn't his size.
I mentioned that brazing would ruin the paint, and he just shrugged a "no big deal."
Would there be the same response if it were a Cinelli?
Another suggestion was to remove the decals and tell people it was a European frame. You know, had I done that, it probably would have been purchased by one of those same customers. Centurion carries "No mystic."
There seem to be no bikes from Japan or Taiwan that have achieved any sort of collectible status. The closest is probably 3Rensho (San Rensho). These are very well made and highly regarded frames for both road and track that are built in the traditional manner. Several world championships have been won on them, but they are still not in the value ballpark with Cinelli, De Rosa or even Colnago.
Bridgestone's RB-1 has a reputation as a great riding frame, and I sold many of these in the late Eighties for my employer in Colorado. But the selling feature for these bikes was that they were designed and rode just like a classic Italian bike. No mystic, no collectibility to speak of.
My friend at Bicycle Classics, the foremost classic bike store in the U.S., gets most of his requests for classic Italian bikes. And he tells me that most of his requests come from . . . Japan.
This subjectivity regarding collectible value is not limited to bicycles. I own two cars: one is a rock-solid German sedan from the late 70's, the other is a rusty Triumph just a few years older. The sedan is faster, corners better, is more reliable, more practical, and hauls the family. The "TR" is deserving of one of those bumper stickers that say, "All Parts Falling Off This Car Are Of The Highest British Craftsmanship." But no one asks me to sell them the sedan. Everyone seems to think the "TR" is cool. I tell them, "It would just leak each of its fluids onto your garage floor, then top that off by stranding you. But it's not for sale, man. It's a classic."
What relegates classic status?
Bicycle components follow a similar path. For the past ten years, Shimano has been regarded by consumer magazines as the leader in bicycle components both for technology and for execution. But there seems to be no passion for its parts.
Campagnolo held the position as leader in technology and execution until the mid Eighties, and there exists great passion for its stuff even into current products.
I recently located a used Dura Ace derailleur for a customer (it was no problem finding someone willing to sell one) and the price was well below half that of a similar condition C Record of the same era.
The Shimano was regarded as the better unit when new by magazine reviews and such, but try prying a C Record from someone now. I have never been asked to restore a bike with Shimano components, even if it was originally equipped that way. Why is that?
I have a friend who owns a Rivendell frame. These are beautifully done with Reynolds tubing and ornate lugwork. Rivendells are sure to become classics in years to come. This same friend happens to work for the company that makes and sells Greg LeMond bikes, and he has been riding a LeMond lately. This LeMond has higher tech Reynolds tubing than the "Riv," carbon fiber fork, and saves weight by being tig-welded instead of lugged, and he tells me that the LeMond rides great.
Now I trust his opinion because he knows how a good bike should ride. And I trust that Greg LeMond knows bike design. But the Rivendell has that mystic that says 10 years from now it will still be a treat to look at and already the value has risen on the Rivendell. Not so with the LeMond.
What is the criteria that applies to one and not the other? They both will get you where you are going. But like the two cars in my garage: one will get you there with a big ole grin on your face while the other will get you there with less fanfare and probably faster.
Which feature will be most desirable as time passes?
As Michael Kone (Bicycle Classics) was recently quoted, "That's the difference between buying craftsmanship and buying technology. Craftsmanship increases or at least maintains its value over the years, but technology gets severely devalued the minute it is sold, because everyone knows in a year it's going to be old news."
Return to July 1997 index