Ray and Steven and all,
A couple of things, and then I have to go. One, If it was in the 1972 NY show, does this make the bike a '72 bike or a '73 bike? My feeling is that the bike shows are like car shows and everything else; what goes on display is what is new for the upcomming selling season. So if a bike appears at the '72 show, then my opinion is it's a '73 model year bike. One could not buy the bike pictured in 1972. The '72 bike looks different with a few detail changes and some graphics changes. I call the bike by the way they were available during the year in question. The bike pictured is what one would get if they bought one in 1973 from a bike shop. So I call it a '73. Some people want to call it a '72. What do you all think?
The other thing I noticed about this frame is that it has brazed on water mounts on the DT. That is not standard on any colnago I've seen prior to 1974 or maybe '75, although I need to check into this a little further. Masi started brazing on WB mounts in about '72. Anyway, knowing what Colnagos normally look like but not having seen the bike in person, I say the bike has extra attention or at very least is an exceptional example of the work Colnago can do. First, one would have to be an idiot to randomly select frames for display at a bike show, not to mention frames that are going to travel all over the world on display at several shows. You make or at least pick your best examples of what you want to sell to the customers that year. And one thing I know for sure, Ernesto is no idiot! I think he's the sharpest in the business and has been for many years. Period. I think the bike is certainly above average for that period of Colnago, which is at it's zenith in 1973 in my opinion.
Brian
steven maasland wrote:
As far as the bike being a true New York 'show' bike, this too seems rather unlikely to me, as at the time there was no special 'value' to the builder or distributor to hang on to it. In fact, the longer one held onto it, the less it would be worth, as Colnago was continually 'improving' his bikes, thereby devaluing the older ones.
---
i don't understand this statement. while the bike may not be a SHOW bike (ie, no special attention lavished upon it when building the frame or preparing/selecting the components), how is it not a show bike based on its value to colnago over time, or colnago's continual improvement of his bikes? i don't see how these subjective criteria have any impact on whether the bike in question was on display at colnago's booth at the 72 new york bike show. it was there or it wasn't. if it was, then it is a show bike, right?
i sure hope i am not being openly dense here, but i just don't understand the logic there. help!
ray dobbins
miami florida