From; Chris Plunkett
Long time reader but never submitted. Tom's perspective moved me to get off the sideline. I am all about period correctness and historical accuracy. Like many here, I sweat over the smallest details when restoring vintage bikes to their or iginal glory. But I was reminded today in Tom's post, cycling is also about the differences and having fun. Riding in 60's and 70's as a younger man there were always vast divisions o f riders. The rider who tricked out a bike (supped-up was the term of the d ay) with the the latest and greatest innovations, bolt on a new one and dis card the stock one, color coordination a must. Above all it was imperative that your bike didn't appear even close to stock. Custom was for the very c ool, hip and rugged cyclists and stock was for a Mommas boy. Then there was the rider that so cherished the correctness of his bike, he swore to preserve and protect. He polished it nightly and thought, if it wa s good enough that the factory put it on, who the heck was he to take it of f, and he would honor correctness by leaving his bike alone. Then the racer who was tearing his bike apart daily, looking to lighten the load, get just a little more speed. Thinner and thinner wheels and tires. Change out the fork, off with all non essentials including bar tape, rear b rake, hell even the decals.
Today nothing has really changed; I still see vast divisions of riders on t heir perfect vintage correctness and racing on their premium composite mate rials. But also I see bikes like a 30 year old chrome Paramount frame set u p as fixie with fenders, chopped bars, purple cables, purple saddle & tires . I saw it yesterday, the rider zig zagging through the herd of cars during rush hour, a guy in his twenties. Besides contact with my aging bike circl e, I talk with the hipsters that blast down the city streets of Chicago on their custom steel steeds and the message is the same; We pay homage to the cycling legends & giants of yesterday by riding the frames they designed, raced and built. But with correctness aside we don't want our bikes to look or ride like anyone else\u2019s. We want our vintage bikes to be one of a kind, innovative head turners, built with the highest quality parts on e arth. No, not much has changed.
_____________________________________________________________________ Tom:
I pretty much agree with you, but here's a different angle on it. My only
on-topic bike, a 2nd or 3rd-tier one at that, has survived its whole life
apparently without modification, which I think is unusual and kind of cool.
How many unrestored 36-year-old bikes still have Hunt-Wilde handlebar tape,
albeit yellowed and peeling?
For Cirque-worthy bikes, correctness is the ideal, so a looser attitude towards originality may be refreshing to you.
But maybe the opposite is true for more run-of-the-mill bikes. After all,
how many of them have had preening owners owners fussily preserving their
originality over the years? For them, an eclectic mix of parts is the norm . So, to me, it would be different and refreshing for a "rider" to have original stuff. Not for correctness, but for the unusualness of it. My funky old puke-green-over-chrome bike will undoubtedly catch some eyes at
the rest stops, once I get it on the road. With a Cinelli saddle, waffle-textured plastic bar tape, and red Universal brake shoes, it's sure
to hold those eyes a bit longer, and I find that fun. A conversation starter, an education for those who have grown up in the Carbon Age. Again, just coming at it from a different angle. Bikes are an unequivocal
good, however they're kitted out. (Well, some are gooder than others).
Cheers,
Jerry G. Prigmore,
Clovis, California, USA