Someone did email me offlist today a photo of a Mk II/III/IV or whatever 70's Pro in the Blue/Silver color with non-fastback stays. So I didn't dream it. But all the catalogs seem to show the Mk II and beyond with fastback stays, so I have no clue what the story is there. I don't think my Mk I is the least bit crude, maybe more fundamental and less "slick" than my Mk IV, but as good a bike in a different way. The amazing thing to me is many Raleigh Pros have been bought on eBay for less than the value of their Campy components. Indeed, several CR members have confessed to buying them as "donors". But the damnest thing sometimes happens. One actually LIKES these frames. And sometimes the "donor" gets restored rather than parted out. I've often compared the PX-10 to an MGTC or Triumph TR-3, in that, while less sophisticated than a Ferrari Testa Rosa or birdcage Maserati, it was much more important as millions owned it and gained entry to a sport through it. The all-Campy Raleigh Pros were maybe more like the 50's Corvettes, still crude compared to a Ferrari, but pretty damn fast and still bought by millions. I can say that in the mid-70's it was a Raleigh Pro or Schwinn Paramount I dreamed of owning, not a Colnago or DeRosa. Even today, I do not think I was wrong.
Regards,
Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA
> 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, 6:33 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