Re: [CR] Tall '71-'72 Raleigh Pro on Denver Craigslist

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PY-10)

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:44:34 -0800
From: Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net>
To: George Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com>, <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>, John D Proch <johnprochss@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <863290.18195.qm@web111004.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Tall '71-'72 Raleigh Pro on Denver Craigslist


I think it is extremely difficult to say what a classic bike, or any collectible, is "worth". This was pointed out by the $7000 Colnago discussed in a recent thread. Some were surprised at the price, others thought it was well bought.

However, while the Colnago was certainly an unusual one, making it difficult to know the "right" price, there are a lot of Raleigh Pros around, and enough sales to establish a "typical", if perhaps not "correct" value. As someone pointed out earlier, there have been several Raleigh Pros sold NIP in recent years, probably from someone buying out the inventory of a long-closed bike shop or maybe a recently closed shop with very poor inventory management. I think a $3000 price was cited for these, but I think I saw some more like $2000. In any case, with NIP examples of the same model selling for $3000, I think it is fair to say that $5000 for even a pristine used example is a high price.

But prices for collectibles are subject to emotion and personal factors as well as comparable sales. I rather doubt the craigslisht Raleigh Pro actually went for $5000, but who knows? Perhaps someone had a strong personal memory of this bike from his youth or was buying it as a gift for his father, who had once owned one. And if the bike was just the right size, perhaps he didn't want to wait for maybe a year for an NIP example in the proper size to become available.

I think John's point about where you advertise is well taken. I would not think one would get $5000 from the CR list for a Raleigh Pro, simply because most here are aware of NIP or pristine used examples that have sold for half that or less. Collectors, but not specifically collectors of classic bikes, are probably a better market. The best buyer, from the seller's point of view, is someone who knows what the bike is, and probably has some personal link to the model, but who has not spent a lot of time observing what similar examples have sold for, or who perhaps does not even care much about comparable sales.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA


--- On Fri, 1/15/10, John D Proch wrote:


> From: John D Proch <johnprochss@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [CR] Tall '71-'72 Raleigh Pro on Denver Craigslist
> To: "George Allen" <jgallen@lexairinc.com>, Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2010, 10:08 AM
> Hi Greg,
>
> I saw the $5000 dollar Raleigh. You folks, I really think
> the Raleigh is worth it. (right???) But then again, there
> are enough fools in the world, so one never knows.
> I think he is advertising in the wrong place to get the
> exposure to expect 5 grand, heck, why not 20 or even
> $50,000.
>
> I think the Barrett- Jackson auction is more like the
> proper exposure.
>
> Let me get my Pro's out.
>
> Regards,
> John Proch
> La Grange, Texas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Allen <jgallen@lexairinc.com>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 9:07:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR] Tall '71-'72 Raleigh Pro on Denver
> Craigslist
>
> Wow, 5 grand for a early 1970's Pro! I think I'll sell my
> basement horde of Raleighs and retire early.
>
> George Allen
> Lexington, Ky
> USA
>
>
>
> On 1/14/2010 12:32 AM, gear@xmission.com
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Dale's mention of a Raleigh reminded me of this one.
> Looks like a very nice bike, seller says he'll listen to
> offers. I'm no Raleigh expert, but I know some you folks
> are. I'm not related to the bike nor the seller. Here's the
> link:
> >
> > http://denver.craigslist.org/bik/1543565914.html
> >
> >
> > Greg Overton
> > near Denver, Colorado
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.