Brett wrote among other very well put points:
Brett: > Just because George Mount was "at the head of a chain that includes, Boyer, LeMond and Armstrong" should not be confused with the fact that George Mount was never in the league of LeMond or Armstrong. Even if cycling memorabilia exploded, it is going to take a long, long time before you get to George Mount's 1976 Olympic ride on the list of cycling's greatest achievements. George's contributions to US cycling is important. But that doesn't translate to money for George or his bike. Perhaps one should inquire to George how many endorsements he has going today as a result of his "epic" ride in 1976. I ask you, how much would you pay for a bike ridden by the George Mount equivalent from say, Switzerland? The guy who paved the way for Koblet, Rominger, and others? My guess is probably not a whole hell of a lot. Further, I feel confident that if I lined up the ten best cycling historians in the world, the most you may get is a glimmer of name recognition for George and that is it.
Steven: Given that I have lived almost all of my life outside of the US, I
have never been a flag-waving patriotic American. This does not take away
from the fact that I recognise that George did make a contribution to
American cycling. This contribution was however miniscule when compared to
so many other people. I have yet to hear of a single cyclist who took up
riding due to George's "epic" ride. Compare this to the incredible number of
people who mention the heroics of LeMond or Armstrong (not to mention the
financial rewards that became aparent) as the spur that pushed their cycling
ahead. I've heard many Americans mention Kelly, Anderson, Boyer, Grewal,
Hegg, Vails, not to mention such women as Carpenter, Twigg, Martin, when
they speak of their cycling idols, but George? Sorry to say not a peep. And
I was just starting to race and ride seriously at the time of the Montreal
olympics so at my most impressionable. At that time, only Merckx's name
elicited envy and awe.
>
Brett: > A note about the Coppi bike: Bear in mind that the average cycling
fan in Europe had no clue it was a bad restoration, had questionable
provenance, etc. In all of Europe, and this auction was hyped in magazines
and was televised, no one came out of the wood work to drive the price up.
Steven: I can attest that news of the auction was indeed carried on National
news in both France and Italy as I observed it firsthand and as Brett
states, there was not a single note of discord or doubt about the
authenticity of the bike in these reports. I believe that these overly
glowing reports of the possible value of the bicycle were the reason the
armchair collectors never got interested in the bike. Had nothing been said
about the bike, I believe that it most likely would have sold for more
money. Why indeed would anybody even dream of buying a bike for $10-12K when
the pre-auction hype spoke of $30-50K. As Coppi remains today a national
hero in Italy, I don't think that $12K for a 'Coppi' bike is all that
far-fetched to the occasional collector, $30K on the other hand is quite a
different matter. In my books the auctioneers did not do their work terribly
well. They set an unrealistic price for the bike that was offered.
>
Brett: > The thought that "many are adopting the "don't touch it" mindset
due to the influence of Antiques Roadshow" is insulting. The simple reality
is that you can always "paint up" a frame. Once you've painted it, it is
impossible to go back. Once repainted it isn't original, period.
>
Steven: I know of not one single collectible item where a restored item is
worth as much as an item in original weathered finish, including cars.
Furthermore, when cars are refinished, they do generally get judged on the
materials used for the restoration. This means that the fancy new paints are
not acceptable for top show placing or votes. No Imron's, no clear
coats...etc. Furthermore, over-restoration of cars is a very American
phenomenon. In Europe and Japan, cars regularly get penalised for
over-restoration in concours events.
>
Brett: > It was said: "If George's bike is worth $2,500 as some suggest,
that means a contemporary pro bike, available everywhere with no history
whatever, with a usable life span a fraction of this bike and absolutely no
soul is worth twice as much?" In a word: YES. Pray hard - maybe someday
there will be a viable market for historical bicycles. Until then: buy them,
ride them, and enjoy cycling memorabilia as a hobby rather than a component
of your investment portfolio.
Steven: As I wrote to Brett in an off-list note, at the end of November 2000, I bought the 2000 season De Rosa of Roberto Conti. The same bike that was used for his 16th place finish in the Tour de France and his 44th place finish in the Giro. I have a letter of authenticity from both De Rosa and Conti that this was indeed his bike and was one of the 2 bikes that he used for the full race season (ie not his training or winter bike!) Conti has also compiled more UCI points than all but 2 American riders in history, so he cannot be considered a slouch. Cost of the bike? One third the list price of the bike here in the US! I think that this, more than the sales prices seen in shops, demonstrates the true value of today's new bikes.
To close, I would like to comment on the post of one of my illustrious fellow New Jerseyans. The fact that this bike is being used to reduce somebody's taxation is exactly the reason why a truly honest evaluation should be reached. It is also in the best interst of the already strained budget of the cycling hall of fame (another New Jersey entity) as their insurance rates are dictated by the value of the displayed wares. As an enthusiast, I would rather see the hall pay premiums on a true value than on an inflated value that only goes to the detriment of the state coffers. Especially as the person donating the bike admits to having used the bike very well during his ownership.
Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ
---