Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Avocet)

In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:55:39 -0700
To: "" <>,
From: "Dr. Paul J.Wilson" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Bicycles Are Meant to be Ridden, etc.

Hi Brian,

You may not remember me, but I very much remember you, your shop and all your really cool vintage bikes and components, like that big Campy crank. After visiting your shop about 16 months ago, I got the "collector bug" and now own about 18 bikes. Many of the bikes I ride, many I will never ride, but just admire. My new habit is your fault!

Paul Paul J. Wilson Cell (408) 395-2020, Temecula, California>>(951) 587-3632, San Jose, California 95124, USA>>(408) 377-1710


At 12:13 AM +0000 8-29-07, wrote:
>Obviously some of each is the best. I don't have anything that is in
>the class of too pristine or valuable to ride. I don't expect to end
>with something like that myself; mainly because much of what I have
>comes my way cheap on account of I can fix it myself and actually
>have something. I generally can't afford to compete for the really
>pristine stuff anyway. As long as I didn't end up with too many
>non-riders, I would be happy to just hang something up and enjoy it
>that way. But thus far, I have nothing like that. If I started in on
>wall hangers, it would also open up the possibility of owing a bike
>that isn't my size; which is frequently the best excuse to not lust
>after a particular item. It's really easy to say "since it isn't my
>size anyway, I'm not interested". We all use that one often enough I
>assume. Imagine what would happen if none of us cared what size the
>bike was! Oh my!
>Brian Baylis
>La Mesa, CA
>Until recently, small bikes my size were fairly easy to acquire. Now
>there are a number of sophisticated small bike connoissuers.
>-- "Dr. Paul J.Wilson" <> wrote:
>Gotta pitch in on this one. I can't see that one way or the other
>should be wrong.
>"To each his own." For those who get pleasure out of riding their
>bikes, then ride your bike. For those who get pleasure out of
>admiring their bike hanging from its perch, then look at it often.
>Some may prefer a combination of riding some of their bikes and
>looking at some. I can't see that's wrong either.
>Who has the right to dictate the philosophy on the format of enjoying
>their prized possession?
>At 8:08 AM -0700 8-28-07, Raymond Dobbins wrote:
>>Daniel, I missed your earlier post, but I agree with what you say in
>>this one. I have a 1979 Guerciotti show bike that has never been
>>ridden. Why would I start riding it now, when I have several others
>>that are already in the riding rotation? I like having a bike
>>that's never been ridden and I want to keep it that way. Is that so
>>wrong? :)
>> We are a not so small a minority on this list as might seem from
>>the lack of response to your earlier post. Perhaps its that this
>>topic has been debated several times before and many of us don't get
>>as excited about making our point anymore, like we did the first
>>three or four times. But guaranteed there are many people on this
>>list who have some bikes to ride and others to preserve and show.
>> Ray Dobbins
>> Miami FL USA
>>Daniel Dahlquist <> wrote:
>> Hello Group,
>>A blacksmith-built boneshaker from the 1860's was meant to be ridden. If I
>>were lucky enough to find one of these at a price I could afford, I would
>>happily place it in my collection next to my other vintage bicycles. If
>>someone were to refer to it as an "ornament," I would not take offense.
>>Ornaments, like functioning objects, have a job to do. I would not ride the
>>boneshaker (except, perhaps, in an occasional parade, and then only if it
>>would cause no damage). I have lots of bicycles that I can ride.
>>Now I am the fellow who quoted Keats on this list not so long ago (Beauty is
>>truth, truth beauty," etc.). I received one lone congratulations from a
> >fellow member, so I am sure I am in the minority here. But it seems clear
>>to me that there comes a time when a "utilitarian" object passes into
>>history, and deserves to be preserved.
>>Recently I lucked into a 1973 or 4 Fuji Newest on eBay. It was described
>>as "near mint" condition by the auction house that was handling the sale. I
>>drove several hundred miles to pick up the bike myself to assure that it
>>would not be damaged in shipping. When I saw the bike, I could scarecely
>>believe my eyes. It had been purchased new some thirty-four years ago,
>>ridden approximately fifty miles, then moved to a spare bedroom of a well
>>heated house, where it spent the next few decades leaning against a wall.
>>The paint and chrome are nearly flawless. The bike came with the original
>>unused Fuji tires (the owner used a second custom set of Campy wheels),
>>owner's manual, the clamp-on Sugino water bottle cage and bottle (which,
>>thankfully, the owner had never attached to the bike!), warranty card, etc.
>>(The only thing missing is the original sales receipt, and the son of the
>>original owner is looking through his Dad's papers for it now). Now I have
>>at least ten or twelve vintage riders, all ready to go. Why in the world
>>would I want to start putting wear and tear on this virtually pristine time
>>machine? When I am dead and the next guy gets the Fuji, the decision to
>>ride or preserve will be up to him.
>>At some point every object passes into history. We can debate at what point
>>each of our individual bicyles reaches this point. The desire to preserve
>>is not a loftier, or "better" impulse than the one to get on the bike and
>>ride. It is a different impulse. Preservation and the joy of riding a
>>vintage bicyle are not mutually exclusive, and I suspect most on this list
>>fall somewhere on the continuum.
>>Daniel Dahlquist
>>Galena, Illinois
>Paul J. Wilson
>Cell (408) 395-2020, Temecula, California>>(951) 587-3632,
>San Jose, California 95124, USA>>(408) 377-1710

-- Paul J. Wilson Cell (408) 395-2020, Temecula, California>>(951) 587-3632, San Jose, California 95124, USA>>(408) 377-1710