On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Peter Brueggeman <pbrueggeman@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>Depends on the
> reasons for which you collect, but many do strive to collect with build
> quality as a key consideration. I don't hear about many gaspipe bike
> collectors or Ted Williams Free Spirit collectors on this CR list. If people
> can bash gaspipe bikes, than can they bash Raleighs?
This seems like an unecessary conflation of quality and build quality which are related but not the same. I'd argue that a bike like my 1975 Gitane with 531 DB throughout is light, has a great ride and handling and is a pleasure to ride, is very much a quality bike even if the build quality is only adequate. I can't find evidence of lug thinning on it and there's at least one spot where it looks like the brass didin't make it to the edge of a lug. I wonder what worse Brian might find if he looked closer ;-), but it's adequate if only because I've been riding it for over 30 years and it hasn't broken.
I think of build quality as an essential anchor to much of what I think about as general quality, but notice that there are lots of other characteristics that contribute to quality besides build quality. For me, the minimum build quality threshold would be whether a bike hold together for a few decades of extensive but non-race intensive use. Brian's comments about Raleighs went directly to that point, I thought.
When this quality/value argument has surrounded Peugeots, there are many persuasive aguments that distinguish the great quality and value inherent in a classic PX-10 from the impeachable build quality. I'd say it's worth keeping this distinction, related though they may be.
Then beyond quality there is a more amorphous sense of being a "better" bike, as Mark mentioned, that is beyond quality issues and goes into history, culture, idiosyncracy, etc.
Mitch "whose 71 Raleigh Pro shows lots of lug thinning detail" Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah, USA