Re: [CR] Raleigh Pro part 2

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Avocet)

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:59:52 -0800
From: "John Barry" <usazorro@yahoo.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, "P.C. Kohler" <kohl57@starpower.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB35735B572E4B42AD5D0160B84BF77E@peter5ca78cb10>
Subject: Re: [CR] Raleigh Pro part 2


Peter,

I concur about the build quality on the Mk 1. I had mine all the way down to bare metal, and while it's always possible to find something that could have been a little better, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the brazing or mitering anywhere.

Side note. Please don't put Larry on a calendar. His posts are works of literary art, and if he wants to reel another one off later tonight, or next week, or next month, I say "bravo". If Raleigh wasn't bound by calendars, well then, Larry shouldn't be either. :)

Cheers,

John Barry


--- On Thu, 2/26/09, P.C. Kohler wrote:


> From: P.C. Kohler <kohl57@starpower.net>

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] Raleigh Pro part 2

\r?\n> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

\r?\n> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 7:33 PM

\r?\n> My goodness. That was a bona fide diatribe. And one chockful

\r?\n> of usefull information, thank you Larry!

\r?\n>

\r?\n> I concur entirely especially re. the folly of trying to fit

\r?\n> real bicycles into paper catalogues. For Raleigh. Or for

\r?\n> anything else. Raleigh was, lest we forget, the absolute

\r?\n> biggest cycle company on the Planet during the CR timeframe.

\r?\n> They were so big, they didn't need to follow the Roman

\r?\n> calendar let alone their own catalogues. So what some insist

\r?\n> is a "1969" Mark I because it only appeared in the

\r?\n> "1969" catalogue is not thinking like he works in

\r?\n> Triumph Road, Lenton, Nottinghamshire.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Now, I am not quite comfortable with "crude"

\r?\n> being applied to the Mark I. My frame is sitting here in my

\r?\n> living room (where all newcomers belong) and it's

\r?\n> actually a pretty nicely put together bike. What is

\r?\n> laughably crude is the hamfisted seatstay cap treatment:

\r?\n> someone with the DT's was hired to paint these

\r?\n> "stripes". But do consider that the Mark I cost

\r?\n> $220 with an all Campagnolo group except brakes. I am pretty

\r?\n> confident that was the best value in an all-Campag bike in

\r?\n> 1969-70. The Mark II cost $330. A third more. And it was

\r?\n> brown. Who ever heard of a brown racing bike? It's a

\r?\n> "cafe bike" with a colour to match. The Mark I

\r?\n> looked way better and I'll hold out for a Carlton Team

\r?\n> Pro in Lagoon Blue and white anyday. Now that is one sweet

\r?\n> looking machine especially with Carlton Team kit to match.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> So thanks Larry. That must have felt good. And you get to

\r?\n> repeat it all in oh, about, 10 months, around here.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Peter Kohler

\r?\n> Washington DC USA