The problem with avid collectors of anything is that we too easily become self-styled "experts" and connoisseurs, and from there it easy to slip into being an absolute snob. The more "sophisticated" we become the more items we distain, until finally, only one example of anything is deemed "worthy". Or maybe none, as our taste becomes so "refined" that even the best example ever made is distained for being imperfect in some way.
It's easy to let the best be enemy of the good, in bike collecting as any anything else. When I got a brand new Peugeot UO-8 in 1972, I thought it was the height of European sophistication, light and responsive, so much better than the ballon-tire bikes I rode in my childhood, or the three-speed "English racers" I rode in my adolescence. It was cool in every way, right down to the little "Michelin man" on the tire sidewalls.
Guess what? I was right, the UO-8 was a marvelous bike, even though the the Windsor Pro and Lejeune F-70 which followed were even better in measureable ways. And the Raleigh Pros and chrome Paramounts I've since acquired may be better yet in some ways. Sometimes we need to rediscover our sense of wonder at how great lightweight bikes, indeed all bikes, are. Especially compared to cruising around in gas-guzzling, pollution-belching SUV's in between lying about on the couch, gorging ourselves from grossly obese into morbidly obese. A Raleigh Pro or a 70's Paramount is an infinitely better bike than most of us will ever actually "need", even though there are other bikes that are even more skillfully and beautifully made.
I am fortunate to have a Sachs, a Weigle, a Cuevas, a Romic, a couple of Assemmachers, a McLean, an Ephgrave, a Ron Cooper and a Jack Taylor tandem, and soon, I hope, a Fattic. Every one is made with more individual attention and artistry than my Raleigh Pros and Paramounts, But it's not a matter of good bikes versus bad bikes, but rather great bikes versus even greater ones. I'll gladly ride any of them and indeed, I'd gladly ride that UO-8 today, wish I hadn't sold it those decades ago.
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, Texas, USA
"Hansen, Thomas" <TH@HJTH.COM> wrote:
I too have been reading all of the Raleigh Pro posts with great interest.
A brown mink and silver MK 2 was my first pro bike and it changed my life,
although it took me several trades to get to the right frame size. I ended
up with a 23.5 " frame that came out of the window of a small shop in Cali
fornia. It was configured like a Mk. 2 with no chrome on the rear chainsta
ys, but had no special "Limited Edition" sticker. It was also about an inc
h shorter in wheelbase than a normal Mk 2 and it had Zeus dropouts. The wo
rkmanship on the bike was just beautiful with lug work to match all of cust
om bikes of the era. It was head and shoulders above the other production
bikes. During this time(1971 through 75) I worked in a Raleigh shop in San
ta Barbara and assembled a very large number of Pros and Internationals. T
he quality of the workmanship on the bikes varied a great deal and you real
ly didn't know what you would get until you opened the box. Some of the Pr
os came with the normal Prugnat style long point lugs while others had ugly
ornate and poorly brazed lugs. Some of the Internationals had Nervex lugs
while others had the same ugly lugs used on the Pros. The story I heard fr
om the Raleigh rep was that the Carlton guys had gone on strike so they had
Pros and Internationals built at the Raleigh factory. They sure looked li
ke it. I sold my Pro when I went to grad school in 1975 and pined for it t
hereafter. I acquired a very low mileage and untampered with Mark 3 a few
years ago and restored it. The workmanship on this bike compares very favor
ably with the more exotic bikes I now own and rides beautifully as well.
I'm sure that these "production" bikes were the entry for a lot of people i
nto the world of bike lust. Tom Hansen Los Angeles