Re: [CR] contemporary 'vintage' panto parts

Example: Component Manufacturers

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:07:28 -0700
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <>
To: Peter Brueggeman <>, <>
Cc: Classic Rendezvous <>
Subject: Re: [CR] contemporary 'vintage' panto parts

I think we had this discussion before, but I'm not sure how one defines "fake" here. Even In The Day, many of the panto parts did not come from the factory where the bikes were made. Many of the high end bike were sold as framesets, so the parts, panto or otherwise, often were bought through different sales channels than the frames. I don't know if Colnago actually pantographed parts with their own name and logos, or had it done by Campy, or maybe by some third party. I suspect there were all different types of sources, including the framemaker, the component makers, subcontractors for both of these, and shops licensed to produce parts pantographed with the licensed logos. Besides these presumably "authorized" panto parts, there were undoubtedly, In The Day, a fair number of unauthorized panto parts made without the agreement of the trademark owners, both as shady commercial ventures, or because a proud bike owner who had access to a machine shop, or friends who did, customized his components to match his frame.

So if one calls a part currently on eBay a "fake", does that mean it is suspected of being a recent modification, in which case how recent? Or does "fake" mean its production was not authorized by the trademark owner? Or does fake mean that it was not produced by employees of the trademark owner in that owner's own facility? If this last test is applied, I suspect about 90% of all pantoed parts are going to be defined as "fakes". Maybe 99%.

Personally, I think, for example, a Motobecane seatpost pantoed by the original owner of a mid-70's Team Champion is a heck of a lot more "authentic" than one sold sold by the current owners of the Motobecane (and Mercier) trademarks, who are quite legally slapping these names on cheap bikes made in China. In this case, I'd say its the legal product that would be the "fake", while the technically illegal item would be the more "genuine".


Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA

--- On Sun, 7/12/09, wrote:

> From: <>

\r?\n> Subject: Re: [CR] contemporary 'vintage' panto parts

\r?\n> To: "Peter Brueggeman" <>

\r?\n> Cc: "Classic Rendezvous" <>

\r?\n> Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 5:49 PM

\r?\n> Hi Peter:

\r?\n> People will try to sell what will sell well-big names

\r?\n> register with large numbers of bidders, and frequently get

\r?\n> high prices.  Very rare items don't register at all.

\r?\n> The unscrupulous will try to fake what they can.

\r?\n> In vintage bike collecting this practice is not limited to

\r?\n> just pantographing parts, but  faking entire bikes and

\r?\n> now even inventing provenance.

\r?\n> George

\r?\n> George Hollenberg MD

\r?\n> CT, USA


\r?\n> ----- Original Message -----

\r?\n> From: Peter Brueggeman <>

\r?\n> Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:34 pm

\r?\n> Subject: [CR] contemporary 'vintage' panto parts

\r?\n> To:


\r?\n> > Regarding Marc Winkelman's commento on the panto

\r?\n> Colnago

\r?\n> > seatpost and other

\r?\n> > parts " many/most panto items on eBay, this one

\r?\n> appears

\r?\n> > fake too.

\r?\n> > Take a quick look at his other auctions and it's clear

\r?\n> someone

\r?\n> > has gone

\r?\n> > crazy with an engraving machine,.... masquerading as

\r?\n> vintage

\r?\n> > panto. .... "

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > this eBay outpouring of contemporary 'vintage' panto

\r?\n> parts

\r?\n> > appears limited

\r?\n> > to readily salable marques like Colnago, Derosa,

\r?\n> Pinarello,

\r?\n> > Bianchi, etc.

\r?\n> > Panto items for less salable marques like Somec and

\r?\n> Grandis

\r?\n> > continue to

\r?\n> > appear authentic and are infrequent on eBay.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Peter

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> >

\r?\n> > Peter Brueggeman

\r?\n> > La Jolla California USA

\r?\n> > 4peebee(at)