Hmm,
Not sure I agree with a few things in this post - but I understand where Jerry is coming from. First, the early Campy parts are facinating because many of the early variations reflect significant hand labor. Unlike a coin or a stamp, the items are the result of craftspeople making something of both exceptional function and beauty. If one is to look at the first generation Campy calipers, there are differences from the later ones that reflect a more time-intensive manufacturing process. The early ones have barel adjusters that are more highly polished for example and this simply requires more time. And early parts often show the efforts to perfect the design - for either function or ease of manufacture. So there is a lot of history in these early bits.
And to say that Campy is more subject to collector fanatasism than French components is not true in my mind. The highest prices I've ever seen for an early deraillieur are for early Simplex Juy Record variations. Certain varieties of chainrings for Stronglight 49D cranks can be worth a fortune. And what about the subtle variations that can make one alloy rail Ideale saddle worth a mint and the other sell for a song?
But Jerry is right in that if you can accept "close but not exact", you can go for the less sought after items and save a fortune. In almost all cases the riding experience will be just the same. There is so much wonderful stuff out there that is not super valuable that the budget oriented enthusiast can have a field day.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
> I think this whole discussion, if viewed with some perspective, points out the
\r?\n> obsessive behavior exhibited by many of us bike collectors. The fact that
\r?\n> someone could potentially alter a pair of brake calipers and thereby increase
\r?\n> its price fivefold suggests that many buyers have an obsessive preoccupation
\r?\n> with detail that makes them potential victims of such scams.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> While equipping a bike with components of period -correct or even original
\r?\n> design, manufacturer and model is perfectly reasonable, obsessing over trivial
\r?\n> cosmetic details within a single model of component seems to me to be "over the
\r?\n> top". It seems Campy components are the object of some of the most extreme such
\r?\n> obsessive behavior. Perhaps that is because Campy parts have been the most
\r?\n> exhaustively documented. I also suspect that French components discourage the
\r?\n> same level of obsession because markings were more erratic and because the
\r?\n> French manfacturers tended to keep old models in production for decades
\r?\n> virtually unchanged, simply pushing them down to a lower price point as new
\r?\n> model came out.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I recognize that obsessiveness about detail is probably not as great among
\r?\n> bike collectors as, say, stamp and coin collectors. But I regard bike
\r?\n> collecting as fundamentally different from those hobbies in that bikes, for me,
\r?\n> are to be ridden, allowing one to recreate the same experience as when the bike
\r?\n> was new. Coins and stamps, on the other hand, can only be hoarded and gloated
\r?\n> over, since no one would ever use valuable ones for their originally intended
\r?\n> purpose, even in cases where they are theoretically still legal tender.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Regards,
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Jerry Moos
\r?\n> Big Spring, TX
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> "c. andrews" wrote:
\r?\n> Ken Toda wrote:
\r?\n>
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Also, isn't it possible to buff off letters on the caliper
\r?\n> and re-anodize for
\r?\n> > 900.00
\r?\n> > price tag?? See monting bolt "BREV" vs. "PATENT"
\r?\n> CAMPAGNOLO, which one is
\r?\n> > older. I thoght the "PATENT" one is older??????
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Regards to all.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > KEN TODA, High Point, NC
\r?\n>
\r?\n> *******
\r?\n>
\r?\n> there are rumors that someone here in socal, who shall
\r?\n> remain nameless, was toying with trying to produce fake
\r?\n> no-stamp brakes, but, as far as I ever heard, the project
\r?\n> never came to fruition..if that's the word to use..
\r?\n>
\r?\n> And it is impossible to make an acceptable fake without the
\r?\n> original run of bolts, as has been pointed out previously,
\r?\n> so the whole thing is/was a little silly ... of course it's
\r?\n> totally unethical too, but I assumed we all understood
\r?\n> that..
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Ken mentioned the *Patent* and *Brev.* thing. This confused
\r?\n> me for quite awhile until I realized that some parts had the
\r?\n> *Patent* stamp early on, and some had the *Brev.* stamp
\r?\n> early on.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Someone should make a little list, noting which parts had
\r?\n> what stamp in what chronology.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> As for the brake bolts, the early bolts, up through 1973 or
\r?\n> so, are stamped *Brev. Camp.* or similar. Later brake bolts
\r?\n> are stamped *Patent* or similar. This is one of those tiny
\r?\n> details that can derail an otherwise decent
\r?\n> restoration...putting *Patent* stamped bolts on an early 70s
\r?\n> frame is a give-away that the brakes are not original to the
\r?\n> frame (if the idea is to create a bike as-assembled at the
\r?\n> factory)...
\r?\n>
\r?\n> If I have this wrong, someone correct me please. But I just
\r?\n> checked three bikes I have that I know for a fact were
\r?\n> factory-assembled (or, at worst, assembled by a bike shop
\r?\n> from a frame at the time the frame was made), and all three
\r?\n> conform to the scheme above.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Charles "way too concerned about this stuff for anyone's
\r?\n> good, especially my own--because I've been meaning to
\r?\n> replace the *patent* brakes on my 1970 Pogliaghi for a year
\r?\n> now, they bug me every time I look at it/them" Andrews
\r?\n> SoCal
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> "It's impossible to make a man
\r?\n> understand something when his
\r?\n> livelihood depends on him not
\r?\n> understanding it."
\r?\n>
\r?\n> -Upton Sinclair